Trump's Push to Inject Politics Into US Military Compared to’ Soviet Purges, Cautions Top Officer

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash 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 escalation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”