🔗 Share this article The Former President's Push to Politicize American Armed Forces Compared to’ Soviet Purges, Cautions Retired Officer Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions. Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance. “When you contaminate the body, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for commanders downstream.” He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and lost in torrents.” An Entire Career in Uniform Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969. Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military. Predictions and Current Events In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office. Many of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented. The Pentagon Purge In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said. Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders. This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.” A Historical Parallel The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces. “Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.” The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.” Legal and Ethical Lines The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members. One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat. Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.” The Home Front Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions. The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where lawsuits continue. Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical scenario where one state's guard is commandeered and sent into another state against its will. “What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an confrontation in which both sides think they are right.” At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”