The Former President's Drive to Politicize US Military ‘Reminiscent of Soviet Purges, Warns Retired General

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical scenario where one state's guard is federalised 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 following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”