Does the President Need to Be Commander-in-Chief?– TCS Daily
Lee Harris, a contributing editor at TCS Daily, recently posted an article suggesting a potential way out of the impasse that seems to be developing within the US government over the current and future conduct of the war in Iraq. Mr. Harris suggests that the solution might lie in the President removing himself and politics from the equation by delegating the everyday responsibility of Commander-in-Chief in Iraq to someone else.
Ironically, this idea is not as unreasonable and unsound as it first appears, and it is not without precedent. Mr. Harris presents the example of President John Adam’s approval of George Washington as Commander-in-Chief when hostilities with Napoleon seemed imminent. That example seems further supported by the roles of the Supreme Commanders of the European and Pacific theaters during World War 2.
The point of such an idea is to remove the political element of operations like the one currently going on in Iraq, letting military men fight the war with sufficient executive and legislative oversight. By eliminating the political component by delegating such responsibility to military commanders, the politics become an issue of the President and Congress being forced to tell the military actually fighting the conflict what they think rather than fighting the war rhetorically inside the Beltway.
Further, this notion seems especially fitting for an all-volunteer fighting force, whose substantial core is career military personnel who continue to serve because they are patriotic Americans, not because they have to. This force is arguably dedicated to fighting and winning such a conflict in the most expedient way possible, for their own sakes and for the sake of their nation. As a result, the commanders of such a force will be willing to make decisions that are often hard for politicians to make and will be willing to see those decisions through to their proper conclusions.
Arguably, the most informed commander in the entire operation in Iraq is the commander of the forces in Iraq. General William Casey, as commander of the entire coalition operation, has a much closer view of the daily operations, their rates of completion, and the promise of their long-term success than any other high-ranking commander does. Given his proximity and ability to respond, General Casey, or his successors, should be the Commander-in-Chief of all forces currently assigned to the war in Iraq.
Make no mistake; such a delegation comes with incredible responsibility. Once designated, someone like General Casey will ultimately be responsible to the American people for every action he takes. Every success or failure will be weighed in the court of public opinion and consciousness, however every one of those decisions will be far more military ones than those currently being made.
The end result is a military campaign focused like a laser on the goal of success. Extraneous efforts, especially those that are politically motivated, would likely be subordinated or eliminated in favor of accomplishing the mission. Free of political constraints, the military forces in Iraq would be free to do what they were sent to Iraq to do in the first place.
Granted, this idea has its own pitfalls. There are always questions of accountability when so much power is placed in one person’s hands. Further, in order for such an action to truly succeed, the non-military missions currently assigned to the military would have to be delegated elsewhere so that the military commander could concentrate on military activities.
This solution, however, frees the politicians to be politicians and the military to be the military without blurring the line between the two, thereby threatening the integrity of the mission those very same politicians asked the military to perform. The result, is a winning situation for everyone, and possibly the promise of a winning situation in Iraq, which under the current circumstances seems to be a distant chance indeed.
-=DLH=-
I read the same article and was intrigued by the possibility. The President has “baggage” inherent in his position, baggage which could very well hinder his ability to make the best tactical and strategic decisions. It would also, btw, free Hilary (or whoever) from the whole “someone else’s mess” idea she was screechig about last week.
I think we would do well to consider this idea.
After writing the initial post, another idea occurred to me that really compliments the original.
It seems to me that it is not reasonable for us to expect the President to be the Commander-in-Chief, Chief Diplomat, Chief Executive, Chief Financial Officer, et al all at the same time. Obviously, no one is good at all of those things, and while we expect the President to delegate many of his other responsibilities, we never expect him to delegate the one of Commander-in-Chief.
This fact seems somewhat disingenuous on our part, perhaps even symptomatic of the American “It’s someone else’s problem” malaise.
-=DLH=-