Trump's Effort to Inject Politics Into US Military Echoes of Soviet Purges, Cautions Top General

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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