The Former President's Effort to Inject Politics Into US Military Echoes of Stalin, Cautions Retired Officer

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the actions envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles 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 the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”