The Former President's Effort to Politicize American Armed Forces ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Cautions Top Officer

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents downstream.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation 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 installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 each party think they are right.”

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