The Former President's Effort to Politicize American Armed Forces Echoes of Soviet Purges, Warns Retired General

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion 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 dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world 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 the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping 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 controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. 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 stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”