Arguably the most important duty of the President of the United States is spelled out in Article II, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution: “The President shall be Commander in Chief” of the armed forces of the United States. While other presidential responsibilities can be delegated to other members of the administration, it is difficult to imagine a presidential candidate stating: “I’m not interested in the military. I’ll have someone else handle that.” Her or his candidacy would be effectively over.
What credentials should Americans look for in evaluating a potential commander in chief? Three credentials stand out. The first is prior personal military service. From 1940-1973 every American young man faced the possibility of mandated military service, the draft. During World War II that meant a large percentage of young Americans actually did serve in some branch of the military. As a result every post-war president from Harry Truman to George H.W. Bush served honorably in the military, often with particular courage or professional distinction.
That changed in 1992 with the election of Bill Clinton, a draft eligible young man who gamed the Selective Service System to avoid military service. He was followed by George W. Bush, whose service in the Texas Air National Guard exposed him to charges of using political influence to avoid more career disruptive or dangerous military service. His successor, Barack Obama, was too young to have faced a draft obligation. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders may be the last draft-eligible serious presidential contenders who did not serve in uniform.
The second credential is that a candidate should have some understanding of what military service entails. This can be gained in a variety of ways beside personal military service. That should include a reasonable understanding of the flaws, as well as the virtues, of the military and the men and women who serve.
Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama faced difficulties with understanding some of the traditions of the military. Bush’s 2003 photo-op landing on an aircraft carrier with a “Mission Accomplished” banner was bragging before the Iraq mission was actually accomplished. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates criticized Obama for supporting the troops but being reluctant to praise the mission for which they fought. Presidents who were military veterans would probably have avoided such errors.
The third credential for the future commander in chief is an understanding of the military and diplomatic state of the rest of the world. It is here where the commander in chief’s powers will need to be exercised. Potential conflicts are brewing around the world in 2016. Significant knowledge of North Korea, the South China Sea, the nations of eastern Europe and the Middle East is highly useful. A new president without this familiarity may not have time to get a full briefing starting from zero knowledge when unexpected events call for military decisions within the hour.
The 2016 campaign presents the fascinating prospect of the first female major party candidate for the presidency being far more militarily credentialed than her male opponent. While neither Trump nor Hillary Clinton served in the military, women were not subject to the draft. Men were and Trump should explain his lack of service. Clinton gained valuable familiarity with the military from her duties as first lady and her six years as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Her four years as secretary of state have given her diplomatic and foreign policy experience matched by few presidents.
Trump, lacking in all three credentials, falls short of Bush, who had military service, and Obama, who had congressional service. Equally troubling, Trump has shown a lamentable cluelessness about the nature of military service. His criticism of Sen. John McCain’s heroism as a prisoner of war missed entirely McCain’s refusal to let his North Vietnamese captors give him special privileges as the son and grandson of prominent admirals. This was quiet self-sacrifice and dedication to his fellow captives that reflected longstanding military traditions.
Then, Trump’s comments about the parents of a dead war hero were stunning in their insensitivity. Finally, Trump reinforced his ignorance of military culture with his comments about being excited to be given a veteran’s Purple Heart. Trump appeared to equate the Purple Heart with dozens of “Citizen of the Year” awards that wealthy citizens could purchase for sufficient financial contributions to the awarding institution.
Donald N. Zillman is a military veteran and author (with Elizabeth Elsbach) of “Living the World War: A Weekly Exploration of the American Experience in World War I.” He lives in Portland.