Trump's Push to Politicize American Armed Forces ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Cautions Top Officer

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft 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 conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding 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 professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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 lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 following orders.”

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