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

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for commanders in the future.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, 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 armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

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 major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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