Trump's Effort to Politicize US Military Echoes of Soviet Purges, Warns Top Officer

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos 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 sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 escalation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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