Hail to the Other Chief

Friday’s passage of a non-binding U.S. House resolution opposing President Bush’s plan to deploy more troops in Iraq, and the following Senate debate on an identical resolution, constitute at least a rhetorical challenge to Bush’s authority to make war policy. It’s just the latest replay of an old conflict: Congress holds the purse strings, yet on military matters the president is the commander-in-chief, or as Bush would have it, the “decider.”

But is that necessarily the case? Must the conflict between the executive and legislative branches over war policy become even more heated? Or is there a way to solve this, both for the Iraq war and in the future? Lee Harris, author of “Civilization and its Enemies,” offers a tantalizing - though implausible, maybe impossible - solution to this dilemma:

Bush should designate someone other than himself to be commander-in-chief.

The Constitution states that “the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” But Harris points out a couple of caveats:
1. This clause was written for George Washington, who already had the title of commander-in-chief and who everybody assumed would become president.
2. It wasn’t taken literally by the Founders after that, because his successor, John Adams, nominated Washington to become commander-in-chief again when it looked like we were about to go to war with France.
The Senate, in fact, confirmed Washington for the post, delivered his commission to him, and he accepted. It was official. But the war threat passed, and the matter dropped.

So why not do it again? If you’re looking for the Framers’ “original intent,” there it is: The president nominates a qualified person to assume the expert duties of commander-in-chief, subject to confirmation by the Senate.
The beauty of this is that, having chosen someone with bipartisan backing and consent between the executive and legislative branches, it would remove much of the partisan motivation behind the debate on war policy. As Harris says, it could remove Iraq as the top election issue in 2008 and provide continuity during a change of administrations.
The president could focus on the nation’s many other issues, leaving strategy and command decisions to the chief.

This is not unlike a suggestion that’s been floating around for years: In a complex world the Founders could not have envisioned, we need two presidents – one for domestic issues, one for foreign affairs. It would take a constitutional overhaul to such an arrangement official, but it could be done in practical terms by having the vice-presidential half of the ticket run as the person who would take one of those portfolios. Bill and Hillary Clinton tried something vaguely like that with their “twofer” pitch in 1992, but the time wasn’t right.

With Iraq strategy likely to dominate the national debate and take our focus from other pressing issues in the coming months, even years, the time may now be right to make someone other than the president our commander-in-chief.
Someone high-profile. Someone who commands universal respect. Someone with the strength of bipartisan consensus. Someone who has expertise as a military tactician but is clearly committed to civilian control of the military.

Do I hear Colin Powell clearing his throat?