The Former President's Effort to Inject Politics Into US Military ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Cautions Top General

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality 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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a theoretical 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 both sides think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”