The Former President's Drive to Inject Politics Into US Military Compared to’ Soviet Purges, Cautions Top Officer

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”