Trump's Push to Inject Politics Into US Military Compared to’ Stalin, Warns Retired General

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He added that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos 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 deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions envisioned in those drills – 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 view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular 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 forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised 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 lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident 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 following orders.”

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