The Former President's Drive to Inject Politics Into US Military Compared to’ Stalin, Warns Retired Officer

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be very difficult and costly for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept 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 dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 all involved think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”