🔗 Share this article Trump's Push to Politicize American Armed Forces Echoes of Stalin, Warns Retired General Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated. Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake. “When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for administrations downstream.” He added that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drip at a time and drained in gallons.” A Life in Service Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969. Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces. Predictions and Current Events In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House. Many of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass. A Leadership Overhaul In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said. Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs. This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.” An Ominous Comparison The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces. “The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority 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 debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”. 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 doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger. Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.” The Home Front Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities. The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where cases continue. Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are acting legally.” Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”