Trump's Push to Inject Politics Into US Military Echoes of Stalin, Cautions Retired Officer

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant 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 murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a hypothetical 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 following orders.”

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