Trump's Push to Politicize US Military Echoes of Stalin, Cautions Retired General

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He 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 removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

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 law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law overseas might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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