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

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission 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 train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles 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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”