He's Not Commander In Chief Of Civilians

[Donald Isler]

The New York Times
By GARRY WILLS
Published: January 27, 2007
Evanston, Ill.

WE hear constantly now about “our commander in chief.” The word has become a synonym for “president.” It is said that we “elect a commander in chief.” It is asked whether this or that candidate is “worthy to be our commander in chief.”

But the president is not our commander in chief. He certainly is not mine. I am not in the Army.

I first cringed at the misuse in 1973, during the “Saturday Night Massacre” (as it was called). President Richard Nixon, angered at the Watergate inquiry being conducted by the special prosecutor Archibald Cox, dispatched his chief of staff, Al Haig, to arrange for Mr. Cox’s firing. Mr. Haig told the attorney general, Elliot Richardson, to dismiss Mr. Cox. Mr. Richardson refused, and resigned. Then Mr. Haig told the second in line at the Justice Department, William Ruckelshaus, to fire Cox. Mr. Ruckelshaus refused, and accepted his dismissal. The third in line, Robert Bork, finally did the deed.

What struck me was what Mr. Haig told Mr. Ruckelshaus, “You know what it means when an order comes down from the commander in chief and a member of his team cannot execute it.” This was as great a constitutional faux pas as Mr. Haig’s later claim, when President Reagan was wounded, that “Constitutionally ... I’m in control.”

President Nixon was not Mr. Ruckelshaus’s commander in chief. The president is not the commander in chief of civilians. He is not even commander in chief of National Guard troops unless and until they are federalized. The Constitution is clear on this: “The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.”

When Abraham Lincoln took actions based on military considerations, he gave himself the proper title, “commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” That title is rarely — more like never — heard today. It is just “commander in chief,” or even “commander in chief of the United States.” This reflects the increasing militarization of our politics. The citizenry at large is now thought of as under military discipline. In wartime, it is true, people submit to the national leadership more than in peacetime. The executive branch takes actions in secret, unaccountable to the electorate, to hide its moves from the enemy and protect national secrets. Constitutional shortcuts are taken “for the duration.” But those impositions are removed when normal life returns.

But we have not seen normal life in 66 years. The wartime discipline imposed in 1941 has never been lifted, and “the duration” has become the norm. World War II melded into the cold war, with greater secrecy than ever — more classified information, tougher security clearances. And now the cold war has modulated into the war on terrorism.

There has never been an executive branch more fetishistic about secrecy than the Bush-Cheney one. The secrecy has been used to throw a veil over detentions, “renditions,” suspension of the Geneva Conventions and of habeas corpus, torture and warrantless wiretaps. We hear again the refrain so common in the other wars — If you knew what we know, you would see how justified all our actions are.

But we can never know what they know. We do not have sufficient clearance.

When Adm. William Crowe, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, criticized the gulf war under the first President Bush, Secretary of State James Baker said that the admiral was not qualified to speak on the matter since he no longer had the clearance to read classified reports. If he is not qualified, then no ordinary citizen is. We must simply trust our lords and obey the commander in chief.

The glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizements; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizements. We are reminded, for instance, of the expanded commander in chief status every time a modern president gets off the White House helicopter and returns the salute of marines.

That is an innovation that was begun by Ronald Reagan. Dwight Eisenhower, a real general, knew that the salute is for the uniform, and as president he was not wearing one. An exchange of salutes was out of order. (George Bush came as close as he could to wearing a uniform while president when he landed on the telegenic aircraft carrier in an Air Force flight jacket).

We used to take pride in civilian leadership of the military under the Constitution, a principle that George Washington embraced when he avoided military symbols at Mount Vernon. We are not led — or were not in the past — by caudillos.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s prescient last book, “Secrecy,” traced the ever-faster-growing secrecy of our government and said that it strikes at the very essence of democracy — accountability of representatives to the people. How can the people hold their representatives to account if they are denied knowledge of what they are doing? Wartime and war analogies are embraced because these justify the secrecy. The representative is accountable to citizens. Soldiers are accountable to their officer. The dynamics are different, and to blend them is to undermine the basic principles of our Constitution.

Garry Wills, a professor emeritus of history at Northwestern, is the author, most recently, of “What Paul Meant.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times

[Corlyss_D]

Published: January 27, 2007
Evanston, Ill.

WE hear constantly now about “our commander in chief.” The word has become a synonym for “president.” It is said that we “elect a commander in chief.” It is asked whether this or that candidate is “worthy to be our commander in chief.”

But the president is not our commander in chief. He certainly is not mine. I am not in the Army.

I first cringed at the misuse in 1973, during the “Saturday Night Massacre” (as it was called). President Richard Nixon, angered at the Watergate inquiry being conducted by the special prosecutor Archibald Cox, dispatched his chief of staff, Al Haig, to arrange for Mr. Cox’s firing. Mr. Haig told the attorney general, Elliot Richardson, to dismiss Mr. Cox. Mr. Richardson refused, and resigned. Then Mr. Haig told the second in line at the Justice Department, William Ruckelshaus, to fire Cox. Mr. Ruckelshaus refused, and accepted his dismissal. The third in line, Robert Bork, finally did the deed.

What struck me was what Mr. Haig told Mr. Ruckelshaus, “You know what it means when an order comes down from the commander in chief and a member of his team cannot execute it.” This was as great a constitutional faux pas as Mr. Haig’s later claim, when President Reagan was wounded, that “Constitutionally ... I’m in control.”

President Nixon was not Mr. Ruckelshaus’s commander in chief.

Maybe not, but he was Richardson's, Ruckelshaus', Haig's, and Bork's boss. A difference without a distinction. Wills is straining for symbolism where there is none. And if Bork had not stayed at Justice at Richardson's specific request, because someone of Bork's calibre had to run Justice after the blood-letting, he probably would be a SCOTUS justice today.

But we have not seen normal life in 66 years. The wartime discipline imposed in 1941 has never been lifted.

What country is Mr. Wills living in? I don't see people growing victory gardens; or rationing of food and gasoline; or blackouts; or manufacturing of consumer goods abandoned to produce war materiel; or defense budgets that account for a hefty portion of the GDP. On the contrary. I see a country that is rendered immune to the discomforts of war by political design, as a corollary of "limited war." That's what limited war means: nobody is inconvenienced except the war fighters and their families.

But we can never know what they know. We do not have sufficient clearance.

I guess he and Frank Rich and Paul Krugman and Pinch Sulzberger really really really want to know what the NSC knows, so they can deem it unworthy and then tell us what to think about what they learn. I don't. I hire the government to handle the details so I can get on with my life. I think that is what representative government means. You have to trust someone, and between their increasingly perfervid commentary and the duly elected officials of the government, it ain't gonna be that quartet.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s prescient last book, “Secrecy,” traced the ever-faster-growing secrecy of our government and said that it strikes at the very essence of democracy — accountability of representatives to the people.

Yes, but what Moynihan was arguing for is both less reflexive classification and more responsibile Congressional oversight, not a direct pipe-line between the NSC and Hal Keller's typesetters.

Wartime and war analogies are embraced because these justify the secrecy.

I suppose the fact that we are at war is too big a gorilla to have escaped Wills' attention, so I can only conclude that he's one of the many who simply refuse to believe it. Him and most of one major political party.

[jbuck919]

Here's one I've been wondering about for years:

The first president I can recall having been caught returning a salute (say, coming down the steps of AF I) is Carter. At the time I recall being shocked. The president is the CIC but he is a civilian (that is the whole point), and civilians wearing civvie garb do not return salutes. I can't recall an image of a single previous president, including Eisenhower, doing so. Now it seems to be routine, but to my mind still questionable.

[Ralph]

Here's one I've been wondering about for years:

The first president I can recall having been caught returning a salute (say, coming down the steps of AF I) is Carter. At the time I recall being shocked. The president is the CIC but he is a civilian (that is the whole point), and civilians wearing civvie garb do not return salutes. I can't recall an image of a single previous president, including Eisenhower, doing so. Now it seems to be routine, but to my mind still questionable.

*****

We were taught to return salutes in civilian clothes when I was in the Army (65-68). I don't know what and when the precedent was.

[pizza]

Here's one I've been wondering about for years:

The first president I can recall having been caught returning a salute (say, coming down the steps of AF I) is Carter. At the time I recall being shocked. The president is the CIC but he is a civilian (that is the whole point), and civilians wearing civvie garb do not return salutes. I can't recall an image of a single previous president, including Eisenhower, doing so. Now it seems to be routine, but to my mind still questionable.

*****

We were taught to return salutes in civilian clothes when I was in the Army (65-68). I don't know what and when the precedent was.

We also did it in '51 - '54. It was a matter of respect for commissioned officers and nobody in our unit objected or made an issue about it.

[Madame]

We were taught to return salutes in civilian clothes when I was in the Army (65-68). I don't know what and when the precedent was.

We also did it in '51 - '54. It was a matter of respect for commissioned officers and nobody in our unit objected or made an issue about it.

Remembering Lt. in "Good Morning Vietnam", played by Bruno Kirby. He BEGGED to be saluted when he walked in to the room, said that's what being a second leutenant is all about. LOL

[Sapphire]

Our Queen is saluted as Colonel-In-Chief of several British Army Regiments. I can't see why your President shouldn't deserve the same respect, as C-in-C. In fact, based a on quick look at one or two USA websites, it shows when and when not to salute (just Google it "when to salute"); and saluting the President is the proper thing to do by the military on appropriate occasions.

[pizza]

We were taught to return salutes in civilian clothes when I was in the Army (65-68). I don't know what and when the precedent was.

We also did it in '51 - '54. It was a matter of respect for commissioned officers and nobody in our unit objected or made an issue about it.

Remembering Lt. in "Good Morning Vietnam", played by Bruno Kirby. He BEGGED to be saluted when he walked in to the room, said that's what being a second leutenant is all about. LOL

It may make for entertaining fiction but reality says there's a helluva lot more to being a good officer than demanding salutes.

[jbuck919]

Several things seem to be confused here. The president is always saluted. The question was whether it is traditionally proper for him to return the salute. Presidents at least since Carter have done so, but I am still not quite sure how far back the custom goes (it is not quite the same as a known officer returning an encounter salute if he happens to be wearing civvies--encounter salutes as opposed to ceremonial salutes are not supposed to be "dropped" until returned).

As for Good Morning Vietnam, though I did not see the film, it is a common misconception propagated by Hollywood that one salutes indoors. With few exceptions, this is not done in the US military.

[Madame]

Remembering Lt. in "Good Morning Vietnam", played by Bruno Kirby. He BEGGED to be saluted when he walked in to the room, said that's what being a second leutenant is all about. LOL

It may make for entertaining fiction but reality says there's a helluva lot more to being a good officer than demanding salutes.

It was a "had to be there" -- in the context of the film -- he wasn't a good officer, or a good radio personality, and nobody respected him -- he was grasping -- all he had was his commission -- I tossed it in here for a laugh -- obviously failed

[Madame]

Several things seem to be confused here. The president is always saluted. The question was whether it is traditionally proper for him to return the salute. Presidents at least since Carter have done so, but I am still not quite sure how far back the custom goes (it is not quite the same as a known officer returning an encounter salute if he happens to be wearing civvies--encounter salutes as opposed to ceremonial salutes are not supposed to be "dropped" until returned).

As for Good Morning Vietnam, though I did not see the film, it is a common misconception propagated by Hollywood that one salutes indoors. With few exceptions, this is not done in the US military.

No, that was not the "message" from Hollywood in this film -- you'd have to see it to get the humor I was trying to sneak in here. I'll be very careful about that in the future

[Brendan]

The Constitution is clear on this: “The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.”

Just curious as an Aussie, but would that be the "militia" that also has a constitutional right to bear arms? Like, you know, everyone?

[Corlyss_D]

The Constitution is clear on this: “The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.”

Just curious as an Aussie, but would that be the "militia" that also has a constitutional right to bear arms? Like, you know, everyone?

Well, the "when called into service" would operative as far as the concept of "militia." The National Guard, which replaced the militia in practice if not name, acknowledges him as commander in chief when they are on duty. Otherwise, he's just the President.

[living_stradivarius]

The day Bush becomes a true commander is the day he leads the charge into battle on his SegWay.

[jbuck919]

The Constitution is clear on this: “The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.”

Just curious as an Aussie, but would that be the "militia" that also has a constitutional right to bear arms? Like, you know, everyone?

Well, the "when called into service" would operative as far as the concept of "militia." The National Guard, which replaced the militia in practice if not name, acknowledges him as commander in chief when they are on duty. Otherwise, he's just the President.

An ingeniously evasive answer on the part of Corlyss, who obviously doesn't want to open the usual can of worms by directly addressing Brendan's question.

[Ralph]

We were taught to return salutes in civilian clothes when I was in the Army (65-68). I don't know what and when the precedent was.

We also did it in '51 - '54. It was a matter of respect for commissioned officers and nobody in our unit objected or made an issue about it.

Remembering Lt. in "Good Morning Vietnam", played by Bruno Kirby. He BEGGED to be saluted when he walked in to the room, said that's what being a second leutenant is all about. LOL

It may make for entertaining fiction but reality says there's a helluva lot more to being a good officer than demanding salutes.

*****

You ain't kiddin'.

[Ralph]

Several things seem to be confused here. The president is always saluted. The question was whether it is traditionally proper for him to return the salute. Presidents at least since Carter have done so, but I am still not quite sure how far back the custom goes (it is not quite the same as a known officer returning an encounter salute if he happens to be wearing civvies--encounter salutes as opposed to ceremonial salutes are not supposed to be "dropped" until returned).

As for Good Morning Vietnam, though I did not see the film, it is a common misconception propagated by Hollywood that one salutes indoors. With few exceptions, this is not done in the US military.

*****

One salutes indoors when under arms or reporting to a superior officer.

[Ralph]

The Constitution is clear on this: “The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.”

Just curious as an Aussie, but would that be the "militia" that also has a constitutional right to bear arms? Like, you know, everyone?

Well, the "when called into service" would operative as far as the concept of "militia." The National Guard, which replaced the militia in practice if not name, acknowledges him as commander in chief when they are on duty. Otherwise, he's just the President.

*****

Not quite, Corlyss. A number of states still maintain a true militia. New York has the New York Guard which is an armed force totally distinct from the National Guard. They are called into service by the governor and cannot be federalized.

My law partner retired as Commanding General, Army Division, New York Guard.

[Ralph]

The Constitution is clear on this: “The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.”

Just curious as an Aussie, but would that be the "militia" that also has a constitutional right to bear arms? Like, you know, everyone?

Well, the "when called into service" would operative as far as the concept of "militia." The National Guard, which replaced the militia in practice if not name, acknowledges him as commander in chief when they are on duty. Otherwise, he's just the President.

An ingeniously evasive answer on the part of Corlyss, who obviously doesn't want to open the usual can of worms by directly addressing Brendan's question.

*****

One theory of the Second Amendment, which I happen to favor, is that the right to bear arms is collectivist, not individual, and directly supportive of the duty to be part of a militia. Of course when the Second Amendment was ratified there were significant restrictions on WHO could be mustered into the militia.