The Former President's Push to Politicize US Military ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Warns Top General

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 each party think they are right.”

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.”