🔗 Share this article Trump's Push to Inject Politics Into US Military Echoes of Soviet Purges, Cautions Retired Officer The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated. Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake. “When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders downstream.” He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.” An Entire Career in Service Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969. Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military. Predictions and Current Events In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency. A number of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred. A Leadership Overhaul In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He 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 removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders. This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.” An Ominous Comparison The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army. “The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles 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 deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The administration 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 “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants. Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach 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 actions of international law abroad might soon become a reality at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas. The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue. Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a theoretical scenario where one state's guard is commandeered 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 “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”