The Former President's Drive to Inject Politics Into US Military Echoes of Soviet Purges, Warns Top Officer

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission 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 rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent 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 model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty 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 positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”