The Former President's Drive to Politicize US Military ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Warns Top Officer

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted 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 law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”