Trump's Effort to Inject Politics Into American Armed Forces Echoes of Stalin, Warns Top Officer

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted 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 irrespective of whether they are a danger.

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

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a imaginary 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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