The Former President's Push to Inject Politics Into US Military ‘Reminiscent of Soviet Purges, Cautions Retired General

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to align 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 noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders that follow.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, 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 was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the actions simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts 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 serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a theoretical 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 acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”