What is all this nonsense about us electing a “commander in chief”?
Okay, I mean we all know it’s President Bush’s favorite title. He thrills to being a “war president,” and loves strutting around in front of guys in uniform and getting saluted. But really, what is this all about?
The Constitution says that the President is the commander in chief of the army and the navy, and of the militia if it is called to national service. But that is really just for the sake of having a civilian at the top of the food chain.
President cum commander in chiefs do not actually run the military. They aren’t trained to do that any more than they run education, or run the weather service or NASA. Running the military, like running any federal agency, is what the head of that agency does, and in the case of the military, that’s what the Joint Chiefs of Staff do. A president certainly makes critical decisions in choosing who heads each agency, and in broad policy matters by discussing options with department leaders. The same is true in the case of the military with regard to the Joint Chiefs. But presidents decidedly do not act as top generals.
The idea that Americans, when they go to the polls, whether in a primary or in a general election, are choosing a commander in chief, as our feckless media pundits are wont to tell us, or as candidates running for president are fond of saying in these trying times, is not only overwrought rhetoric—it is downright dangerous, and idiotic too.
What voters are electing is the leader of the country—the person who is responsible for administering the federal bureaucracy that protects our environment, regulates our commerce, funds our education system, builds our roads, and, oh yes, chooses the top brass that runs our military.
Great presidents in wartime—Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt--were great not because they were generals. Certainly Lincoln and Wilson had no significant military experience, and Roosevelt’s military experience was limited. And generals who have been presidents have been a mixed bag. General Grant was by all accounts a poor president; Eisenhower a good one.
Our current commander in chief, because he is obsessed with this one little aspect of his job description, has plunged the country in to the most disastrous war of its history—a war fought entirely on borrowed funds. Faced with a handful of rag-tag terrorists, he has bloated the military with 30 percent more money over the course of his tenure, so that today, the American military budget, in inflation-adjusted dollars, is about to equal the amount the government spent on the military in World War II, when the entire nation was mobilized to confront two powerful adversaries in a global conflict involving millions of American troops.
What a pathetic picture!
America doesn’t need a commander in chief. It needs a wise, level-headed leader who has the courage to acknowledge that you can’t solve problems by throwing ordnance at them, the courage to tell the citizens of the country that we don’t need to spend $1 trillion a year on war and preparations for war, and that in fact, if we cut that spending by two-thirds or three-fourths, we’d still have the mightiest military in the world—and more importantly, a much stronger society and economy.
What America needs is a president who sees the military as an option of last resort, not an option of first resort.
Let’s banish this commander in chief nonsense from the campaign. Bush has already made the title laughable. That is the response we should have when we hear someone say that title in public/
A guffaw. ____________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
To Hell With Them All. It's Time To Kick Them Out of Office!
Everyone knows that the people are supposed to be able to peacefully remove bad leaders through elections, but what if those who control the machines, and their secret vote count, want bad leaders in power? Is there another way that citizens can prevent abuse of power without resorting to violence?
Yes, there is another way to hold our governors accountable without resorting to violence. If you want to find out the other civil check on government abuse of power that our Founders provided for us, then read What Happens When the People Lose the Power to Control Government and What You Can Do to Take the Power Back?http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mark_ada_080204_what_happens_when_th.htm
If you care about the safety of your family, read this article now, and send it to all of your contacts today. Now is the time for action!
by
Mark Adams (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 74 comments)
on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 at 8:17:05 PM
The Constitution makes the President the commander in chief
It was President Bush and no one else that was in a position to give the order to invade Iraq to the armed services. That he did so against the Constitution is grounds for impeachment.
The men and women of the armed services swear an oath to the constitution and to follow the orders of the President as they come down through the chain of command.
It is completely immaterial whether the commander in chief has military training or not - the President is the commander in chief because that is what the Constitution says. There is a need for a single clearly identified decision maker in military situations in order to respond to contingencies as they arise. With good advisors it should not be necessary for a President to have had military training.
It is for the people to take care that they elect competent Presidents and to ensure that they remove through impeachment, when necessary, overreaching power hungry scoundrels.
Your current chief seems determined to take Americans to Hell with him. Whether he succeeds is, as it always has been, a matter for the people themselves acting through their representatives.
