The Former President's Effort to Inject Politics Into American Armed Forces Compared to’ Stalin, Cautions Top General

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents that follow.”

He added that the moves of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, 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 effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“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 similar to today – they are not executing 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

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 is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He described 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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.”