The Former President's Drive to Politicize American Armed Forces Compared to’ Stalin, Cautions Retired General

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining 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 constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant 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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He described a hypothetical scenario where one state's guard is federalised and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an confrontation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”