Trump's Drive to Inject Politics Into US Military ‘Reminiscent of Soviet Purges, Cautions Retired General

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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