Trump's Push to Inject Politics Into US Military ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Warns Retired Officer

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be very difficult and painful for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and emptied 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 father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

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

Predictions and Current Events

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

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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 debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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