The Former President's Push to Inject Politics Into US Military Compared to’ Soviet Purges, Cautions Retired Officer

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be very difficult and costly for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear 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 posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a theoretical 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 escalation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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.”