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

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

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

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the actions simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, 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 fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact 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 party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted 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 established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

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