Trump's Effort to Inject Politics Into American Armed Forces Compared to’ Soviet Purges, Warns Retired General

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

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

He stated further that the moves of the administration were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

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

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a imaginary 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, 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.”