The Former President's Push to Inject Politics Into US Military Compared to’ Stalin, Cautions Retired Officer

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. 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 conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild 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 tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss 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 top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. 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 “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a theoretical 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 all involved think they are right.”

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.”