The Former President's Push to Inject Politics Into American Armed Forces Compared to’ Stalin, Cautions Retired Officer

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. 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 deeply worried that actions of international law overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

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