🔗 Share this article Trump's Effort to Inject Politics Into American Armed Forces ‘Reminiscent of Soviet Purges, Warns Retired Officer Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions. Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake. “If you poison the body, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for commanders that follow.” He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and drained in buckets.” A Life in Uniform Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969. Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces. War Games and Current Events In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency. Many of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass. A Leadership Overhaul In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said. Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs. This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.” An Ominous Comparison The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces. “Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.” 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 indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members. One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants. Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.” The Home Front Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions. The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue. Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised 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 each party think they are acting legally.” At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”