The Former President's Push to Inject Politics Into American Armed Forces ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Warns Retired General

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to 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 initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be very difficult and painful for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed 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 planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to 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 inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach 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 WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 escalation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”