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

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 Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping 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 debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He described a imaginary 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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