The Former President's Push to Politicize US Military ‘Reminiscent of Soviet Purges, Warns Top General

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary 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 Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to bend the top brass 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 reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

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

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 all involved think they are right.”

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