Trump's Drive to Politicize US Military Compared to’ Stalin, Warns Retired General

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration 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 accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”