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

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority 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 furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

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