Trump's Drive to Politicize US Military Compared to’ Stalin, Cautions Top Officer

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

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

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach 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 survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

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