The Former President's Push to Inject Politics Into American Armed Forces Compared to’ Soviet Purges, Warns Top Officer

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing 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 long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

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

He added that the decisions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at 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 the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts 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 bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal 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 escalation in which both sides think they are right.”

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