🔗 Share this article The Former President's Push to Politicize American Armed Forces Echoes of Stalin, Cautions Top General Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned. Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake. “When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders that follow.” He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.” 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 military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969. Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces. War Games and Current Events In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House. Many of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass. A Leadership Overhaul In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said. Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs. This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.” An Ominous Comparison The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces. “Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.” The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.” Legal and Ethical Lines The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers. One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger. Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.” Domestic Deployment Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions. The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue. Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 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.”