Trump's Drive to Politicize American Armed Forces Compared to’ Soviet Purges, Cautions Retired General

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, 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 impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is commandeered and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an escalation in which each party think they are right.”

Sooner or later, 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.”