Trump's Drive to Politicize US Military Compared to’ Stalin, Cautions Retired General

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority 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 furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed 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 established military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime 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.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility 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 contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”