The Former President's Push to Politicize US Military ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Cautions Retired Officer

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty 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 similar impact.”

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 the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial 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 a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has nationalized 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 legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is commandeered 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 “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”