Trump's Effort to Inject Politics Into US Military Echoes of Soviet Purges, Cautions Top Officer

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory 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 solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, 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.”

Rules of Engagement

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

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited 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 homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a hypothetical 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.”

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.”