Trump's Effort to Inject Politics Into US Military ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Warns Retired General

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

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

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

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 authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. 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 deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, 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.”