Commanders-in-Chief

The framers of the U.S. Constitution set the role of Commander-in-Chief in the Office of the President to guarantee civilian control of the military. Aware of the world of their time, they understood the danger an unfettered military posed to civil society. Civilian control was a brilliant initiative, its wisdom confirmed more than 170 years later when President Eisenhower cautioned against the increasing power of the "military-industrial complex".

Republicans, and conservatives in general, imagine the need of military experience for the Commander-in-Chief role played by the President. Yet, since the creation of the Union some 232 years ago only two people have held the Office who could be considered militarily qualified to be Command-in-Chief: General Washington, commander of the Continental Army and General Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in WWII. President Washington chose not to wage war; President Eisenhower chose to successfully end the one he inherited. As qualified Commanders-in-Chief they understood military force is the option of last resort.

Other Presidents have served in the military, many as officers, however, only the first and thirty-fourth were military strategists. Both were 'big-picture' thinkers, concerned not with the imagined insult or perceived injustice of the moment, but with the well-being and future of the Nation as a whole.

A Commander-in-Chief must be a strategic thinker, understanding the world, it's cultures and nuances, and appreciating America's position of power and responsibility as a leader. A Commander-in-Chief must also be aware of America's limitations, financially, militarily and politically.

Those preferring the role of 'maverick' best remain in the more contained tactical arenas where their nature enables them to excel. Mavericks are knee-jerk, narrow focus thinkers. Occasionally heroes of the moment; but unsuited for larger roles where their presence constitutes enormous risk.