Trump's Drive to Inject Politics Into American Armed Forces ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Warns Top Officer

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is established a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down 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 climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, 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 the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized 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 cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 each party think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”