Trump's Drive to Politicize US Military ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Cautions Top General

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

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

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

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

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty 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 posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 right.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”