Trump's Drive to Politicize American Armed Forces Echoes of Stalin, Warns Retired General

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be very difficult and painful for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating 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 rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality 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 WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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.”

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