Trump's Push to Politicize US Military Echoes of Stalin, Warns Retired Officer

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted 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 established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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.”

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