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

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

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

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating 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 train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

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