Trump's Effort to Politicize American Armed Forces Echoes of Stalin, Warns Retired Officer

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief 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 sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

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

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early 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 all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality 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 looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 escalation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”