The Former President's Push to Politicize American Armed Forces Compared to’ Stalin, Warns Retired Officer

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

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

He continued that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is established a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from positions of authority 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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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