The Former President's Effort to Inject Politics Into American Armed Forces ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Cautions Top General

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be very difficult and costly for commanders downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

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

A number of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated 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 US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 each party think they are following orders.”

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