The Former President's Drive to Inject Politics Into US Military Compared to’ Stalin, Warns Retired Officer

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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 Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash 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 acting legally.”

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