Donald Trump will inherit at least eight active combat theatres with direct US involvement (Iraq/swathes of Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Cameroon, Somalia and Uganda), up from the three that Barack Obama inherited in 2009 (Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan). The ‘war-related’ commitments have increased from $ 811 billion under the Presidency of George W Bush to $ 866 billion in the Obama tenure, while the overall annual Defence spending for 2016 would be approximately $ 600 billion. However, given the aggressive posturing and unpredictable nature of Donald Trump’s position on dealing with terror and managing foreign policy, these Defence figures could spiral stratospherically.

In the US context, the Secretary of Defence is the key executive whose powers over the US military are in the chain of command, second only to those of the US President. The US Secretary of Defence is also sixth in the Presidential line of succession. So, given the existing operational commitments and the foreboding portents owing to the growing belligerence of Chinese threats, the selection of the new Secretary of Defence in the Trump cabinet is keenly awaited, as the incumbent would have the definitive “authority, direction and control over the Department of Defence. Historically, the US Secretary of Defence has always been a civilian, except in the case of General George Marshall who was the Secretary of Defence in 1950-51. He was brought in to resurrect the morale and confidence of the US forces in the aftermath of the recent demobilisation and to get them combat ready for Korea and the ensuing Cold War theatrics. Therefore, the choice of the Secretary of Defence is a sure-shot indicator of the tenor and approach that is sought to be adopted by the new Trump regime.

Herein, the choice of retired Marine General James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a veritable statement of intent. While it is still subject to a Congressional waiver, as the federal law requires the Secretary of Defence to be off active duty for at least seven years, and General Mattis retired as the 11th Commander of the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) at Tampa, Florida, in 2013. This 4-star General is part of the popular folklore with monikers like “Mad Dog”, “Warrior Monk” and the ubiquitous imagery of a stoic and expressionless General with the call-sign “Chaos” staring out of posters with statements like, “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet” or “Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up front with you, I like brawling”!

Now, a certain amount of brouhaha and swagger comes naturally to the Marine Corps fraternity and it needs to be discounted. However, this life-long bachelor with a penchant for voracious reading is a cold-blooded intellectual, who became a legend much earlier as a Major-General commanding the 1st Marine Division during the 2003 Iraq war, when he immortalised the 1st Marine Division motto, “no better friend, no worse enemy”.

Unlike the only other former veteran as Secretary of Defence, the Democrat appointee, General George Marshall, who was an inherent pacifist (recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1953 for his seminal ‘Marshall Plan’ for the European Recovery Programme) and was also avowedly opposed to the idea of recognising the State of Israel, General Mattis, is, as the rightist Donald Trump introduced him, a ‘true General’s General’, an old-school American who still believes that Iran is the principal threat to US interests in the Middle East and not the ISIS, still cast in the anti-Russian mindset of the Cold-War era and is believed to be intrinsically confrontationist in his operational deployments.

Already, the conciliatory tones of ‘inclusiveness’ that were alluded to and invoked by Donald Trump after his electoral victory are falling apart with the prospective appointments of Jeff Sessions as the next Attorney General, Mike Pompeo as the CIA Chief and Michael Flynn as the National Security Adviser — all of them come with taints of racism or xenophobia and a track record of regressive and incendiary statements. The proverbial ‘walls’ Donald Trump promised are inevitable, at least in the crucial policy-making framework of the next Presidential governance.

The quintessential Marine Corp General Mattis will have to make an unknown and uncomfortable transition from the familiar ‘Semper Fi’ intonations and muscular Oorah’s to the more stately sobriety of continuous engagement and disengagement of the American military footprint in such a way that the diminishing might and respect of the US military is both restored and protected from the heavy price it is paying in terms of personnel lives, material and sustenance investments. The recent thawing, from a decidedly hostile to a cautious status of ‘frenemies’, on both Cuba and Iran stands risked with Trump’s advent as he threatens to reverse ‘better deals’ for the US.

Increased military spending, blunt speak and concern for the last US man standing would be logically expected from General Mattis, but at question is his ability to bring the requisite ‘political’ astuteness to manage often contradictory strains and realities such as the Pakistan theatre with its duplicitous and ‘selective’ stance on the ‘war on terror’. With a track record of undeterred and apolitical soldiering, the military commitments will have a more military rationalisation as opposed to the often obfuscated rationales professed by part-time civilian bureaucrats in the Defence set-up or by semi-informed politicos who have hidden angularities to their statements. While the US Secretary is akin to our Defence Minister, the formula of an ex-military man at the helm of military affairs will be put to test. The only parallel example of a veteran as the Defence Minister in India was Jaswant Singh, arguably among the finest, albeit, for a short period. If the appointment of General Mattis was to send an unmistakable message of deterrence to interests inimical to the US and to prop up the flagging morale of the over-stretched US forces, then on both counts, the result will be unambiguously achieved. However, the acid test for the Secretary of Defence goes beyond conventional combat ‘Generalship’ and requires statecraft and protracted engagements with enemies that will require General Mattis to go beyond his practised instincts and inclinations. Herein lies the doubt about someone who famously said, “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you (expletive) with me, I’ll kill you all”.

The writer is LT GEN PVSM, AVSM (Retd), former LT Governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry.