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

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

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

He added that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

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 participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular 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 irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. 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 profoundly concerned that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Eventually, 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.”