The Former President's Drive to Politicize American Armed Forces Compared to’ Stalin, Warns Top Officer

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be very difficult and painful for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

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

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the actions envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration 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 “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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