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

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be very difficult and costly for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm 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 manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 each party think they are following orders.”

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