Trump's Effort to Politicize American Armed Forces Echoes of Stalin, Cautions Top Officer

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is established a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority 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 deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

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