The Former President's Drive to Inject Politics Into American Armed Forces Echoes of Stalin, Cautions Top General

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times 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.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host 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 series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped 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 positions of authority 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 armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant 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 murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”