Trump's Effort to Politicize American Armed Forces ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Warns Retired General

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally 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 sent to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

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

Many of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping 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 controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility 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 cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 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 injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”