The Former President's Drive to Politicize American Armed Forces ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Warns Top General

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of 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 unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”