Trump's Effort to Politicize US Military Compared to’ Stalin, Cautions Top General

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. 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 regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”