Trump's Drive to Politicize US Military ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Warns Top Officer

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents that follow.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 increase in tensions 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 people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”