Trump's Push to Politicize US Military Compared to’ Soviet Purges, Warns Top Officer

The former president 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 is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

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

He continued that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

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

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”