The Former President's Effort to Inject Politics Into US Military Echoes of Stalin, Cautions Top General

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the decisions 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 earned a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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