Commander-in-Chief

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the television series, see Commander in Chief (TV series).

A Commander-in-Chief is the commander of a nation's military forces or significant element of those forces. In the latter case, the force element may be defined as those forces within a particular region or those forces which are associated by function. As a practical term it refers to the military competencies which reside in a nation-state's executive, head of state or government. Often a given country's Commander-in-Chief need not be or have been a commissioned officer or even a veteran, and it is by this legal statute that civilian control of the military is realized in states where it is constitutionally required.

The term "commander-in-chief" was first used by King Charles I of England in 1639. A nation's head of state usually holds the position of national commander-in-chief, even if effective executive power is held by a separate head of government. Colonial governors are also often appointed commander-in-chief of the military forces in their colonies. In NATO terminology commander-in chief is often abbreviated to C-in-C or CINC (pronounced "sink").

Below the national commander-in-chief are often appointed various regional commanders-in-chief. For example, at the start of the Second World War the Royal Navy had no fewer than nine Commanders-in-Chief, from Commander-in-Chief Portsmouth to Commander-in-Chief China Station. Such local commanders-in-chief usually have full decision-making authority.

NATO has also established various commands-in-chief, e.g. Commander-in-Chief Allied Forces North, Commander-in-Chief East Atlantic, etc.

Contents 1 Commonwealth Realms 1.1 Australia 1.2 Canada 1.3 Hong Kong 1.4 New Zealand 1.5 United Kingdom 1.5.1 Royal Navy 1.5.2 British Army 1.5.3 Royal Air Force 2 Egypt 3 Finland 4 France 5 Germany 6 India 7 Iran 8 Italy 9 People's Republic of China 10 Sweden 11 Switzerland 12 United States 12.1 Authority as Commander-in-Chief on the battlefield 12.2 War on Terror 13 See also 14 References

[edit] Commonwealth Realms

In the Commonwealth Realms, as elsewhere, the head of state (the British Monarch) is invariably the Commander-in-Chief of her armed forces, though it is usual for Governors and Governors-General also to be Commander-in-Chief in and over their respective territories. In addition, it is also usual for service commanders, particularly in foreign stations, to be given the title of Commander-in-Chief.

[edit] Australia

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia provides that: "The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative", and the original letters patent constituting the office of Governor-General refer to him as "Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Our Commonwealth of Australia". In practice, de facto control of the military is exercised by the Prime Minister, as in other Commonwealth Realms.

Until the early 20th century, the Royal Navy naval commander-in-chief commanding the Australia station of the British Eastern Fleet was known as "Commander-in-Chief, Australia".

[edit] Canada

The situation in Canada as to the identity of the national Commander-in-Chief is slightly complex. The British North America Act of 1867 (now renamed the Constitution Act 1867) provides that: "The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue to be vested in the Queen."

The Militia Act of 1904 provided that: "The Command-in-Chief of the Militia is declared to continue and be vested in the King, and shall be administered by His Majesty or by the Governor General as his representative." Since that time Governors General have been allowed by the Sovereign to carry the title of "Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada." With the creation of the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force in 1910 and 1919 respectively, the Governor General gained command-in-chief over those forces as well. The 1947 Letters Patent of King George VI permitted the Governor General to exercise most of the duties of Head of State in Canada, and the new Commission of Appointment referred to the Office of Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada. Through longstanding parliamentary practice, the Prime Minister of Canada has de facto command and control powers over the Canadian Armed Forces; however all declarations of war must be signed by the Governor General or Canadian Monarch.

[edit] Hong Kong

When Hong Kong was a British colony the Governor was the Commander-in-Chief of Hong Kong, although there was also a Commander of the British Forces in Hong Kong. (After the transfer of sovereignty the commander of the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison are PLA personnel from the mainland.)

[edit] New Zealand

The Governor-General is designated in letters patent issued in 1983 and the Defence Act 1990 as "Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief". Although the Defence Act refers to the powers of the office none are described and this is left to common law, royal prerogative and administrational and operational practice.

[edit] United Kingdom

The title Commander-in-Chief is rarely used by the Sovereign, but usually refers to local or service commanders-in-chief. However, it would not be incorrect to describe the Sovereign as being the Commander-in-Chief. Through longstanding parliamentary practice, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has de facto command over the British Armed Forces.

[edit] Royal Navy

In the Royal Navy, the overall head of the Navy is known as the Lord High Admiral, and the title has been variously held by the monarch or an individual admiral, or put into commission and exercised by a board of commissioners. Since 1964, the title has been held by the Queen. There have in addition long been many commanders-in-chief in charge of Royal Navy ships at home as well as foreign stations. During the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, the term was extended to cover the senior Admiral in a theatre of the war, such as the Mediterranean or North Sea.

In the 1930s the Royal Navy had no fewer than nine commanders-in-chief; today there are two - the Commander-in-Chief Fleet and the Commander-in-Chief Naval Home Command. See List of fleets and major commands of the Royal Navy.

[edit] British Army

In the British Army, the office of General in Chief Command, later renamed Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, was instituted after the Restoration in 1660. Between 1672 and 1904, the title Commander-in-Chief was officially used for the general in charge of the Army, after which the title Chief of the General Staff was adopted. There existed also in times of war, and in places such as India, regional commanders-in-chief. In addition, colonial governors are and were usually appointed Commander-in-Chief in and over their colonies.

[edit] Royal Air Force

The Royal Air Force uses the term "Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief" (sometimes shortened to Commander-in-Chief) to describe those officers in charge of a command. An early example of air force usage occurred on 1 January 1925 when Air Vice-Marshal Sir John Salmond was appointed Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Air Defence of Great Britain. Currently there are two air officers commanding-in-chief, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Strike Command and Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Personnel and Training Command. From 01 April 2007, these will be replaced by a single Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Air Command.

[edit] Egypt

The Egyptian system appears to be an exception to the prevailing systems. The President of the Republic holds the ceremonial title of Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces while a member of the Government holds the position Commander-in-Chief. This person tends to be the Minister for Defence. The President still remains the only individual capable of declaring war. So far all Egyptian presidents have been former military officers, and during the Yom Kippur War the President played a major role at all levels of the planning of the war, and was in a literal sense Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces giving direct orders to the commanders from the headquarters during the war as field marshal of the army, colonel general of the airforce and air defence forces and admiral of the navy. Anwar el-Sadat often wore his military uniform, while Hosni Mubarak has abandoned this tradition. However Hosni Mubarak holds the same ranks during war time.

[edit] Finland

According to the Finnish constitution, the President of Finland is the Commander-in-Chief of all Finnish military forces. In practice, the everyday command and control is in the hands of Commander-in-Chief of the Finnish Defence Forces and the Commander of the Finnish Border Guard. The economic administration of the Defence Force is the responsibility of Ministry of Defence. Since the constitutional reform of 2000, the minister of defence has the right to be present while the president uses her command powers, unless the matter is of immediate concern. In questions of strategic importance, the prime minister has the same right.

The President commissions officers and decides on the mobilisation of the Defence Forces. If Parliament is not in session when a decision to mobilise is taken, it must be immediately convened. The declaration of state of war is made by a presidential decree, which must be afterwards accepted by the parliament.

[edit] France

In France, the President of the Republic holds the title of "Chef des Armées" ("Chief of the Armies"). He is the supreme authority for military affairs, and is the only competent authority for the use of nuclear weapons.

Since the reign of Louis XIV France has been strongly centralized. After crushing local nobles engaged in warlordism, the Kings of France retained all authority ("Droit Divin", "divine authority") with the help of able yet discreet Prime ministers (Mazarin, Richelieu).

The 1789 Revolution transferred the supreme authority to the King (in the context of the short-lived constitutional Monarchy), then to the multi-member Comité de Salut Public during the Convention, and later to the Directoire, before being regained in the hands of Consul Napoléon Bonaparte, later Emperor Napoléon I, alone.

The Restauration restored authority of the King, in an absolute, then constitutional way before being overthrown by the Second Empire. The following Third Republic was a parliamentary system, where the military authority was held by the President of the Council (Prime Minister).

During World War II, Maréchal Philippe Pétain assumed power and held the supreme authority in Vichy France, while Général Charles De Gaulle, acting on behalf of the previous regime, founded the Free French Forces, upon which he held supreme authority all through the war.

The following and short-lived Fourth Republic was a parliamentary system, which was replaced by the present Fifth Republic, a semi-presidential system.

[edit] Germany

Since the 1955 remilitarization of Western Germany, according to the Grundgesetz, in times of peace the Federal Minister of Defence is the Commander-in-Chief of the Bundeswehr. If the "state of defense" (Verteidigungsfall) is established by parliament, the Chancellor of Germany becomes the commander of the German armed forces.

[edit] India

The Supreme Command of the Armed Forces vests in the President. Though effective executive power and responsibility for national defence resides with the Cabinet headed by the Prime Minister. This is discharged through the Ministry of Defence headed by Defence Minister, which provides the policy framework and wherewithal to the Armed Forces to discharge their responsibilities in the context of the defence of the country.

On August 15, 1947, each Service was placed under its own Commander-in-Chief. In 1955, the three Service Chiefs were redesignated as the Chief of the Army Staff, the Chief of the Naval Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff with President of India as supreme commander.

[edit] Iran

Before 1979, the king was the commander-in-chief in Iran. After the inception of the Islamic Republic, the Supreme Leader of Iran has taken on the role.

[edit] Italy

The Constitution of Italy, article 87, states that the President of the Republic is the commander of the armed forces and chairman of the supreme defense council constituted by law; he declares war according to the decision of the parliament; however, since the president has no direct executive power, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence have the actual control of the armed forces, while the president retains a supervision role.

[edit] People's Republic of China

Article 93 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China places the authority to direct the armed forces of the PRC in the Central Military Commission. However, Article 80 gives the President of the People's Republic of China the power to proclaim martial law, proclaim a state of war, and issue mobilization orders. Since the mid-1990's, it has been standard practice to have the President, the CMC Chairman, and the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China be the same person although the differences in the start of terms means that there is some overlap between an occupant and his predecessor.

[edit] Sweden

In Sweden the king was the supreme commander of all Swedish Armed Forces up and till the new consitution of 1975. After the new constitution came into effect, the office of Commander-in-Chief or Överbefälhavare or ÖB for short (in English: Supreme Commander), reports directly to the Minister of Defence and the Cabinet.

However, in order to uphold tradition, the King of Sweden, Carl XVI Gustaf, is still a full four star general of all branches of the Swedish Armed Forces. This rank he shares only with the ÖB, who in turn is a full four star general of only one branch of the Swedish Armed Forces.

[edit] Switzerland

In peacetime, the Armed Forces are led by the Chief of the Armed Forces who has the rank of "Corps commander" (Korpskommandant or Commandant de corps, ranking OF-8 in NATO equivalence). In a time of declared war or national emergency however, the Federal Assembly appoints a General (OF-9 by NATO) as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The General acts as the highest military authority, but is subordinate to the Federal Council, which holds the supreme authority.

Four generals were appointed in Swiss history, General Henri Dufour during the Swiss Civil War, General Hans Herzog during the Franco-Prussian War, General Ulrich Wille during the First World War, and General Henri Guisan during the Second World War ("la Mob", "the Mobilisation"). Although Switzerland remained neutral during the latter three conflicts, the threat of having its territory used as a battlefield by the much bigger war parties of Germany and France required mobilization of the army.

[edit] United States

The Constitution of the United States gives the title to the President of the United States, who "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" (See the 1941 Declarations of War[1] against Japan and Germany for how this call is made). The title commander-in-chief has been used from time to time to refer to powerful regional U.S. military leaders (such as CENTCOM), but the United States abolished all local commands-in-chief in 2002.

The governors of the several states are also commanders-in-chief of their states' respective National Guards and other military forces, except when those forces are called into active federal service. In 1947, the National Security Act made the President, as a consequence of the creation of the United States Air Force, also the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force of the United States, by extension.

Although the United States presidency was modeled upon the kingship of Great Britain, and the title of Commander-in-Chief was unlikely to have been understood to confer upon the President any powers additional to those inherently held by a Sovereign, the title has increasingly come to be perceived as being a peculiarly military position. This has led to a blurring of the distinction between the President's civil and military responsibilities. It was, for instance, the basis for the trial by military commission of Dr. Samuel Mudd. The American presidency thus departs from the civilian basis of virtually all other republics. In 1867 Congress attempted to limit the President's powers as Commander in Chief by passing the Army Appropriations Act. The Act included the “command of the army” provisions, which required that the president issue all commands to the army through the General of the Army. This act was condemned by President Andrew Johnson, but he nevertheless signed it into law.

In the United States, the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 added a new level of commanders-in-chief (CINCs). Under Goldwater-Nichols, regional CINCs were created to bring a local supreme commander to a conflict, the most well-known of which was CINC CENTCOM, who was Norman Schwarzkopf during Operation Desert Storm.

On October 24, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld announced that the title of "Commander-in-Chief" would thereafter be reserved for the President, consistent with the terms of Article II of the United States Constitution. Armed forces CINCs in specified regions would thereafter be known as "combatant commanders," heading the Unified Combatant Commands.

As of May 2006, there are nine Unified Combatant Commands. Five have regional responsibilities, and four have functional responsibilities. The chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may transmit communications to the Commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands from the President and Secretary of Defense, but does not exercise military command over any combatant forces.

[edit] Authority as Commander-in-Chief on the battlefield

As Commander-in-Chief, the U.S. President outranks any military officer and so has the inherent right to assume command on the battlefield. However, because presidents are rarely present in war zones, and often have less military experience than the military commanders, only two presidents, George Washington and James Madison, have so far done so. Washington personally led a federalised militia force of approximately 70,000 troops to quell the Whiskey Rebellion during his second term, although he was not present during any of the skirmishing in the relatively bloodless conflict.

During the War of 1812, President Madison was under enemy fire on August 24, 1814, when American forces were routed by British troops in Bladensburg, Maryland. Madison, incensed by the American commanding general's incompetence, was on the scene and personally assumed command of the only remaining American force, a naval battery commanded by Commodore Joshua Barney. He did so to stall the British invasion of the American capital, but his efforts were unsuccessful, and the British burned Washington over the next two days.

During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln considered personally assuming battlefield command of the Union Army, and studied military texts when he became frustrated by the incompetence and lethargy of his generals. He actually came under enemy fire in 1864 during the Confederate attack on Fort Stevens in the District of Columbia, but did not exercise battlefield authority as commander-in-chief at any time.

[edit] War on Terror

Main articles: Unitary executive theory and Signing statement

In the War on Terrorism President George W. Bush has used these war powers to justify several controversial acts, e.g. NSA electronic surveillance program. The administration, on several occasions, has used a legal theory known as the unitary executive theory, to explain that in his duty as Commander-in-Chief the President, with his inherent powers, cannot be bound by any law or Congress. Advocates of this theory opine that since the primary task of the President, during a time of war, is protecting US citizens, and anything hindering him in that capacity can be considered unconstitutional.^[1] In the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy this was used to suggest he was not required to abide by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).^[2] The same rationale was used to deny detainees in the War on Terror protection by the Geneva Conventions resulting in a global controversy surrounding apparent mistreatment. Also it is thought that the McCain Detainee Amendment, which was adopted to address prisoner abuse, might be ignored after President Bush added a signing statement, invoking his rights as Commander-in-Chief, to that bill.^[3]

[edit] See also

• Command responsibility
• International law
• Jus ad bellum
• Jus in bello
• Military law

[edit] References

1. ^ Suggested interpretation of War Powers in the Bush administration
   • The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State? By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, Findlaw, January 09, 2006
   • The President Does Not Know Best By Elizabeth de la Vega, Tomdispatch.com. Posted January 19, 2006
   • Guest Opinion by Roger A. White, Arizona Daily Star, January 22, 2006
   • Bush on Trial for Crimes against Humanity By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout, January 24, 2006
   • How Much Authority Does the President Possess When He Is Acting as "Commander In Chief"? Evaluating President Bush's Claims Against a Key Supreme Court Executive Power Precedent By EDWARD LAZARUS, FindLaw, January 5, 2006
   • George Bush's rough justice - The career of the latest supreme court nominee has been marked by his hatred of liberalism by Sidney Blumenthal, The Guardian, January 12, 2006
   • Vice President Cheney and The Fight Over "Inherent" Presidential Powers: His Attempt to Swing the Pendulum Back Began Long Before 9/11By John W. Dean, FindLaw,February 10, 2006
   • Democracy's Battle Joined, Again By Robert Parry, December 22, 2005
   • The End of 'Unalienable Rights' By Robert Parry, January 24, 2006
   • No Checks, Many Imbalances By George F. Will, Washington Post, 16 February 2006
   • An Imperial Presidency Based on Constitutional Quicksand By Ivan Eland, January 10, 2006
   • How Close Are We to the End of Democracy? by Martin Garbus, Huffington Post, January 20, 2006
   • Administration Paper Defends Spy Program Detailed Argument Cites War Powers By Carol D. Leonnig, Washington Post, January 20, 2006
   • Scholar Stands by Post-9/11 Writings On Torture, Domestic Eavesdropping By Peter Slevin, Washington Post, December 26, 2005.
2. ^ Ignoring FISA
   • George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachable; Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, December 30, 2005
   • The President's End Run, Washington Post, January 23, 2006
3. ^ McCain Detainee Amendment
   • The Impeachment of George W. BushBy Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 12, 2006.
   • Bush Could Bypass New Torture Ban By Charlie Savage. The Boston Globe. January 4, 2006
   • The President's End Run, Washington Post, January 23, 2006