Trump's Effort to Politicize US Military Compared to’ Soviet Purges, Cautions Top General

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer 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 extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be very difficult and painful for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

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

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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