The Former President's Push to Politicize US Military ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Cautions Top Officer

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

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

He continued that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

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 swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing 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 debate over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

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 serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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