Trump's Effort to Politicize US Military Echoes of Stalin, Cautions Retired General

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally 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 deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a theoretical 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 both sides think they are right.”

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