Trump, shock at Pentagon: face of Fox News at Defence and purge board

The rumours about the purge committee have caused even more uproar. They call it the Warrior Board. More than warriors, however, they will be crusaders in the service of Trump, charged with cleaning up the Pentagon. They raise the spectre of regurgitations of McCarthyism, of unprecedented inquisition practices at the top of the US armed forces. It could in fact, according to critics, require the military to express political positions and metaphorically wear the Maga hat.

The Commission is expected to be one of the executive orders that will be on Donald Trump's desk on the first day of his presidency. Word from the Wall Street Journal, which has seen a draft of the text prepared by a group working closely with Trump's transition team. Whether he will actually sign it remains to be seen. But it is black on white and is perhaps the most extraordinary and controversial of the decrees: it has raised immediate alarm over a strategy of open politicisation of an institution, the armed forces, which in its contemporary history has always sought to keep its distance from party politics. To emphasise its professionalism, loyalty to the Constitution and obedience to all orders it defines as legal.

If generals serve at the President's discretion and there are no unprecedented cases of dismissals due to divergent strategic divisions or loss of trust, an external and parallel system to the normal channels of promotion and examination by the Pentagon under the aegis of the White House of evaluating commanders on the basis of opaque reliability criteria would represent an earthquake. The same executive order cites only one precedent, which dates back to 1940 and in a very different context: the then Chief of Staff George Marshall, in order to prepare the United States for war, initiated a reorganisation of the armed forces by creating a board to accelerate rejuvenation in senior roles with professional criteria, removing senior officers from automatic promotions to bring promising new commanders into the limelight.

Trump's purge board would be made up of a number of retired military personnel chosen by the president with the explicit mission of sifting through the careers of three- and four-star generals (and admirals) and recommending their removal 'in the absence of the required leadership qualities'. The test to be passed by Trump's commanders is to be, in more detail, 'of leadership skills, strategic preparedness, and commitment to military excellence'. Behind the lofty words, however, the risk of a very political and not very military filter is obvious to critics: Trump has long railed against so-called 'woke' generals, progressives who are too concerned about inclusion and diversity among soldiers. And against anyone who stands in the way of his plans or dissents.

"They will be kicked out," he said, referring to what he called the 'woke generals'. He went on to add that among those dismissed, 'by noon on President's inauguration day', will be all those who were in any way involved in the dramatic and disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. More: at stake may be violations of traditional troop deployment. He has made no secret of his desire to use the military for domestic tasks as well, thus breaking a taboo, not only against migrants but also in cities administered by rival Democrats (badly in his view) and against American citizens engaged in demonstrations and protests that he finds intolerable.

During his first administration he had already clashed with numerous generals, who had resisted his impulses, from hasty withdrawals from Syria to resorting to soldiers against protesters in the capital Washington. And he had promised since then precisely a clean-up of the armed forces. Among the first now at risk of ouster in his second administration could be, according to observers, the current chief of staff, Charles Q Brown, guilty of speaking out on racial issues, of the difficulties of making a career as an African-American.

Trump's Commander in Chief team also has broader goals at the Pentagon than the marginalisation of actual or alleged senior officers who are not aligned with his political beliefs: at stake is a radical reorganisation that would reduce the ministry's and command centre's staff, especially that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, undermining its autonomy and influence. 'It is far too large,' said a source close to the newly elected president. 'Many will be retired.