🔗 Share this article Trump's Effort to Politicize American Armed Forces ‘Reminiscent of Soviet Purges, Warns Retired General Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions. Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake. “Once you infect the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations that follow.” He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is established a drop at a time and drained in torrents.” An Entire Career in Uniform Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969. Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces. War Games and Current Events In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House. Many of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented. A Leadership Overhaul In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said. Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs. This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.” An Ominous Comparison The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army. “The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles with similar impact.” The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.” Legal and Ethical Lines The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers. One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger. Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.” Domestic Deployment Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities. The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where cases continue. Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 confrontation 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 people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”