Trump's Push to Inject Politics Into US Military Compared to’ Stalin, Warns Retired Officer

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent 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 a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant 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 is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

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