Talk:Commander-in-chief

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Does that make the president of the US a military officer?

No. It's a little bit of a weird situation, because for instance military personnel are expected to salute him, but not vice versa - the saluting President was an idea of Reagan's IIRC. All military officers have uniforms, but not the President, etc etc. Somebody who really knows this stuff (which is not me) could flesh out some details for this article.

Yes, it does make him a Military officer, see below under Job function. LotteryOhYah 04:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the president is not a military officer. The President of the United States in no way falls under the UCMJ.--RLent 21:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Where is the documentation for the October 24th Rumsfeld statement? "On October 24, 2002, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld announced that the title of "Commander-in-Chief" would thereafter be reserved for the President, and that armed forces CINCs would shorten their title to "commander.""

Contents

[edit] Political Garbage Removal

The "War on Terrorism" section should be removed, or else rewritten from scratch. The definition of the "unitary executive theory" is completely incorrect. The UET has nothing to do with the scope of power as CIC. The statements that follow that definition are likewise wrong, except for the last sentence in the section which is simply a non-factual weasel statement. Equally bad are the three footnotes, containing nothing but 19 references to opinion columns! Since when does an encyclopedia entry back up its facts with references to opinion columns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.157.13 (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Article

I suggest we make a new article based on the title "Commander In Chief of the United States of America". LotteryOhYah 04:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CINC Quotes

All of those quotes are from instances where they are discussing his role as the military commander, and as such is proper IMO. Now if they used CINC when discussing directly social issues then there would be a cause of concern, and a notable quote. PPGMD

There is *way* too much detail on the US politics here.

Since the September_11,_2001_attacks on the World Trade Center and the declaration of the War on Terror, American media has increasingly refered to the President as the "Commander-in-Chief", even in civil affairs. This is often done when discussing the restriction of civil rights, such as with the Patriot Act, suggesting a comparison between the President and the military leaders of dictatorial countries; but ambiguous statements are also regulary featured in statements of personalities favourable to the Bush administration :

  • Zell Miller : "Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief." [1]
  • Pat Buchanan : "Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror." [2].
  • Dick Cheney : "Just as surely as the Nazis during World War Two and the Soviet communists during the Cold War, the enemy we face today is bent on our destruction. As in other times, we are in a war we did not start, and have no choice but to win. Firm in our resolve, focused on our mission, and led by a superb commander in chief, we will prevail. " [3].
  • "A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief when it comes to your security." (Good illustration, since the "Commander in Chief" part of the presidential charge always comes to security , this somehow implies that the "commander in chief" has taken over other parts of the presidency -- Bush campaign line, cited by John F. Kerry [4])

Roadrunner 07:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What about keeping only the last quote ? Rama 13:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This isn't true

Subordinate to the President of the United States are the Commanders of the regional Unified Commands. This model is followed in many other nations.

The US is the only military that has enough global reach to require the creation of regional unified commands. Most other militaries actually have the service chiefs of staff in the chain of command which the United States does not.

Roadrunner 07:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image

What was so POV about the image ? Perhaps the formulation was not adequte, but I don't understand ow the image in itself is POV. Is it actually appropriate to salute for the President ? I've heard that Reagan was the first to do this and that it is not in the protocole, can anyone confirm and infirm this ? Rama 00:24, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First you reffered to President Bush, as President Bush Jr. What does the President getting saluted have to do with the idea of CinC? And finally it adds nothing to the article. PPGMD
Well, I had honestly no idea that refering to "President Bush Jr." would be so offfensive; I suppose that in any case, this could be addressed by replacing this by "President George W. Bush" or something unambiguous like this, could it not ?
The point of the photograph, and its relationship with the title, is that saluting is usually a military custom; the President of the USA is a civil title; thus, there is something remarkable, from the protocol point of view, that the President of the USA would militarly salute the troops: either a traditional oddity, or a formal manifestation of a "military aspect" of the function. I don't know wether I have made my notice understandable ? Thank you for caring. Rama 09:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Military members must salute members with a higher rank than themselves. It is a sign of respect. As a side note, failure to salute an officer is a sign of insubordination, and is against the law of the military.

The President is both the civilian AND military head of the government. He is a civilian as is every member down the succession line.

It is his role as head of the military that officers are saluting.

(please don't be offended if I use the term officers, I mean all members of the military)

[edit] Political Implications Section

I agree with the dividing up into Country sections. But the political implications section is worthless. None of the quotes you give justify your criticism. All are on Security issues, or relating to security. For some reason it has become vogue to call the POTUS, Commander in Chief when it comes to security issues, but it seems like they use it to make him sound more important. But it's pretty rare that the administration using CinC for anything other than security issues, but even then it's not that common, and they prefer the traditional title of President.

Unless you can come up with quotes that show anyone other than his critics (remember quite a number of his critics, like to associate President Bush with Hitler, so using a military title fits their agenda) using the title CinC for the POTUS on a regular basis, I will remove it tomorrow. PPGMD 16:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The quote by Zell Miller, for instance (a supporter of Bush, if I recall correctly) clearly gives the impression the the President would be the Commander in Chief of the United States of America, not only of the US Forces. This is naturally a slip of language (I doubt that a parallel with Hitler's title of Führer could be done without reserves), however, the mediatisation of the title seems to me like somethin worth mentionning. I do not recall Presidents Bush (the first one), or Clinton, being refered to as "Commander in Chief" very frenquently, even though the USA did take part in military operations at the time.
It is certainly possible that the section, as it is, could be perfected, but I wonder wether removing it completely would be fair; do you think the passage is irreparable ? Rama 17:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Zel Miller quote has directly to do with military side of the President. He is saying that you can't have the highest commander of the troops be someone who has called them murders in the past. To me, the CinC title is used only when talking about the military commander side of the Presidency, and is appropriate. It's simply that it's become vogue with the press, and soon after even the politicians are using it, but almost all only use when referring to military and security issues. And has very little to do with politics, simply the media using the name more, which the politicians picked up on. I would support a rewrite to this effect.
I also think that the section could use a more complete rewrite, going into more detail of the US system. Starting with the Defense Reorginzation Act would confuse readers that aren't as up with US politican structure.PPGMD 17:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Parts of this section really need to be deleted because of bias. LotteryOhYah 03:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title?

What is our justification in calling Commander-in-Chief a "title" for the POTUS? I always learned about CinC being a role of the President (like head of state, head of government, party leader, etc.) rather than a title. I know this is a subtle distinction, but I think it's significant. The Constitution certainly supports this characterization just as well.

[edit] 69.47.159.58

there should be no poltics of any sort in what should be a simple dictionary style entry.

for cripe's sake! take your politics to the message boards

This is not a dictionnary, this is an encyclopedia. If you want a dictionary, please see http://wiktionary.org/ . Thank you. Rama 05:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Job Function (US)

The "Commander In Chief" was used by the founding fathers as a way of saying that the President is the head of the armed forces. The military is a pyramid with the President of the United States at the top. It is part of the executive function of the office. The job of the President is to lead the country in a time of war, especially from a military standpoint, although he may leave the planning of this to other officers, if necessary.

He cannot be considered to be a dictator in the technical sense, because he has to be elected for each four year period prior to gaining this title. Note the distinction between this, and the case of where a military coup takes place, and a general assumes control of a nation. No General can legally take control of the United States highest office (technically) because they are not elected.

Should the generals decide to kill the President, the office falls on the Vice President, and down the line of command. The modern day notion is that a "civilian" will always have control of the military. The idea is that the American people will always have control of their own military and not be subjects to it, like in a Kingdom. Power rises from the bottom to the top, not vice versa.

The founding fathers were just as wary of military dictatorship as they were of Kings, so they gave the President the title so that he might be able to remove Generals at will. Technically the President could dissolve the whole military, if necessary. For example, in the case of a President who was opposed to the idea of going to an undeclared war, one which Congress could not muster enough votes to declare. In order to add top officials, it has been customary for them to be confirmed by the Senate, giving a balance of power. The President can fire without consultation, but he cannot hire without it except perhaps temporarily in the case of a recess appointment.

Note that the President is still responsible to Congress and that Congress has the right to impeach the President, given a 2/3's majority, should it so choose. If this were to happen, the Vice-President would become the Commander in Chief, and the President would no longer control the military. This can be considered as either a weakness or a strength in the system. In general, you want the person the people elected as President to serve, but should things turn out badly enough, you also want the option to remove that person. And if you do remove that person, you don't want them reaching using the military.

The importance of the Commander in Chief function is that it allows the President to plan wars in wartime, and to direct military operations in peace time. Because of this, there is an expectation that the President will have served in the military at some point in his or her life adding practical knowledge to this position. Several Presidential candidates and many hopefuls have come from the military. Dwight D. Eisenhower served as a General before he assumed the nations highest military position.

Another side note.. In the film (by the same name) where Nixon is threatened with impeachment, he considers his role as military head. He decides that he would not use the military. Nixon argued throughout the film that his role was comparable to that of, but not that of a King. A King for four years, if you will. Most modern politicians would not assert they were kings.

Technically, if Congress was not able to impeach the President, and still acted as though it had, the military could be used to put down whatever insurection there was. This is a check on Congress as well. Though a worrying one.

The most important military function the President has as Commander In Chief is control over the Nuclear Weapons of the US. This may be the most important function he has period given the stakes involved.

LotteryOhYah 04:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Because of this, there is an expectation that the President will have served in the military at some point in his or her life adding practical knowledge to this position. I can't agree there. There is no requirement of military service to be president, so it can't be said that there is an expectation of military service. You could say, however, that many in the public consider military service to be a plus.--RLent 21:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An improper link

A U. S. Supreme Court case from 1864 is a link to this article. A fix is needed. See: volume #68. Superslum 03:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sink

If the last name is Sink, then he will be known as CINC Sink. Just a thought. Jigen III 20:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Commander is a real term

I noticed that in the article, it notes that "In Fiction" the term Supreme Commander is used for the main commander of a nations military force. However, according to the "Dictionary of Military Terms", it has a listing for Supreme Commander as an unofficial term used by others to descirbe the leader of such forces. --Eldarone (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)