Trump's Drive to Politicize US Military Echoes of Soviet Purges, Warns Retired Officer

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

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

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 escalation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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