Trump's Drive to Inject Politics Into American Armed Forces Compared to’ Stalin, Cautions Top Officer

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective 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 murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”