🔗 Share this article Trump's Push to Inject Politics Into American Armed Forces ‘Reminiscent of Stalin, Cautions Top Officer The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions. Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake. “Once you infect the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents in the future.” He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.” A Life in Service Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969. Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military. Predictions and Reality In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House. Many of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass. The Pentagon Purge In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He 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 series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs. This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.” A Historical Parallel The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces. “Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting 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 debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers. One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants. Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.” The Home Front Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities. The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue. Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.” At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”