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

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

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

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership 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 “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 both sides think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”