The Former President's Drive to Inject Politics Into American Armed Forces Compared to’ Stalin, Cautions Top General

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations downstream.”

He added that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

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 a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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