Willis writes that the use of military rhetoric in America's political discourse "reflects the increasing militarization of our politics." It is critical, Willis argues, that Americans understand the President's Constitutional position in national life. Willis:
"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.”
U.S. Presidents didn't always give themselves a military title for the whole nation in times of war. "George Washington," Willis writes, "avoided military symbols at Mount Vernon," and Abraham Lincoln, who was overlooking a country at war on its own soil, not in foreign places thousands of milies away, had enough respect for the Constitution that he "gave himself the proper title, “commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”
Willis says the confusion began in 1973 when Alexander Haig, then the chief of staff in the Nixon administration, made a remark to Mr. Ruckelshaus, the first administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in which he referred to President Nixon as the commander-in-chief. Willis said he cringed, and said it was "a constitutional faux pas."
The elevation of the President to the commander-in-chief may not have been deliberate early on, mistakes are frequently made in Washington, but when mistakes are not corrected for several generations, then they become the norm. And it only takes a few ambitious men to take advantage of the public's ignorance, and use the commander-in-chief title as an excuse to shut down debate about matters of war, and important national policy.
Willis says that it's the little things that should draw our attention, like a President's salute to marines. Willis:
"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)."
Barack Obama has perfected Reagan's innovation since he was elected into office in 2009. Carol Lee wrote an aritcle in January 2010 called "President Obama's evolution as commander-in-chief" about the President's transformation into a war President. Lee writes:
"Under the guidance of an expert, aides say Obama privately repeated his salute over and over again until he got it down. In a testament to how sensitive the White House is about the commander in chief practicing this basic military gesture, aides would not say who taught Obama how to salute. But every time he uses it, Obama is trying to convey an insider’s respect for the armed forces without saying a word."
It's not just the salute. Obama's military posture, the way he speaks, and the words he uses, all have a military flavour. He is also incorporating the duties of a military leader like visting wounded veterans to show his appreciation. Lee:
"The most visible appearances of Obama as commander in chief are the speeches he’s given at military bases, the visit to Arlington National Cemetery on Veterans Day and the image of him saluting a flag-draped coffin at Dover Air Force Base.
But much more goes on behind closed doors. When Obama visits a military hospital, aides said, he sits quietly as mothers cry on his shoulder, or he puts on surgical scrubs to pray at the bedside of an unconscious Marine whose injuries are so severe it appears he won’t make it through the week."
It is easy to be cynical about the nature of Obama's visits to veteran hospitals, but the truth is that it's a way for the President to express his appreciation for the military, and patriotism. His attention to wounded veterans is more than just a public relations gimmick. It's a respect thing. And it's genuine outreach. One story that really touched me was this:
"In early November Obama walked into Sgt. Thomas Rollason’s room at Walter Reed in a rehabilitation ward for soldiers who’ve lost limbs in Iraq or Afghanistan. He noticed a Pittsburgh Steelers “terrible towel” hanging on the wall, aides say, and struck up a conversation about the team with Rollason, who told the president his favorite player is safety Troy Polamalu.
Before Obama left the room he asked Rollason the one question aides say he always does during these types of visits – “Do you have everything you need?” Rollason said he’d love something autographed by the Steelers.
Three weeks later, while the Steelers were in Baltimore to play the Ravens, Polamalu drove to Walter Reed and hand delivered some autographed gear."
Asssiting military veterans is one the President's few honorable duties, but there is a great danger that underlies the excessive usage of the term "commander-in-chief" and it can't be overstated. As Willis reminds us:
"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."
Willis gave a talk in UC Berkeley in September 2007 in which he expanded on the important dinstiction between civilian and military control, and how the perception of Americans have changed in recent memory regarding the power of the Executive office. Willis said:
"Civilian control is a very sacred thing, and George Washington made it very vivid to us. On the other hand, we've become more and more a militaristic nation. Just to take one little simple example, but a very powerful one. We now are told you elect a commander in chief, you have to obey your commander in chief. And so I wrote an op-ed in the New York Times saying, "He's not my commander in chief," and I got hate mails saying; "If he's not your commander in chief, you're not a real American, get out of this country." And, of course, he's not.
The Constitution says he's the commander in chief of the Armed Services, and of the Militia when called to National Service. So he's not even commander in chief of the National Guard in normal circumstances, and certainly not of any civilians. But now this militarization is such when the President gets off his helicopter or his airplane, and is saluted, he salutes back. Eisenhower never did that. He knew you salute the uniform. You don't salute a civilian, and the President is a civilian. It's only in very recent times that the President has thought of himself as a General. Even people who never served like Clinton, or dodged service like Bush. These are subtle things but they indicate deep, deep changes in our attitude toward accountability of the executive."
Garry Willis is the author of over thirty books, including Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America, A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, Henry Adams and the Making of America, What the Gospels Meant, and, Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State.
