Trump's Push to Inject Politics Into American Armed Forces Compared to’ Stalin, Cautions Retired Officer

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early 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 a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 escalation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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