The Former President's Push to Inject Politics Into US Military Compared to’ Stalin, Cautions Top Officer

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern 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 breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a hypothetical scenario where one state's guard is commandeered 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 “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”