Trump's Effort to Inject Politics Into US Military Echoes of Stalin, Warns Retired General

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders that follow.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned 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 was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling 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 purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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 lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions 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.”