The Former President's Drive to Politicize American Armed Forces Compared to’ Soviet Purges, Cautions Top General
Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.
Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.
“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents in the future.”
He added that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”
A Life in Service
Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost 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 infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.
Predictions and Current Events
In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.
Many of the actions predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.
A Leadership Overhaul
In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.
Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.
This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”
An Ominous Comparison
The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.
“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers 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 removing them from positions of authority 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 furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.
One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.
Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”
The Home Front
Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.
The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.
Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 acting legally.”
Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”