Trump's Drive to Politicize US Military Echoes of Stalin, Cautions Top Officer

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents downstream.”

He added that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is established a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up a theoretical scenario where one state's guard is federalised 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 right.”

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