Trump's Drive to Inject Politics Into US Military Echoes of Soviet Purges, Warns Retired General

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents that follow.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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 lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

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 prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

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

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