Trump's Drive to Politicize American Armed Forces Compared to’ Soviet Purges, Cautions Retired General

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which each party think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”