Trump's Effort to Politicize American Armed Forces ‘Reminiscent of Soviet Purges, Cautions Top Officer

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders that follow.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling 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 dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of 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 inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping 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 debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”