The president is commander in chief? Yes, but it's complicated
| Washington
Along with his presidential victory, Donald Trump will also become the nation鈥檚 next commander in chief 鈥� a prospect viewed with equal parts alarm and fist-pumping anticipation by voters this week.
On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump promised to 鈥渢ake out鈥� the family members of the Islamic State and 鈥渒nock the hell out of鈥� the terrorist group through mass bombing. 鈥淲e鈥檙e fighting a very politically correct war,鈥� he said in amping up his anti-ISIS rhetoric last December. The problem, he added, is that 鈥淲e have a president that doesn鈥檛 know what he is doing.鈥澛�
He has also suggested that he鈥檇 order the Pentagon to institute interrogation techniques worse than waterboarding, which is itself widely considered torture. 鈥淭orture works,鈥� Trump said. When US military officials responded they would refuse to carry out these orders, Trump added during a March debate,鈥淭hey鈥檙e not going to refuse me. If I say do it, they鈥檙e going to do it.鈥�
Sen. Tom Cotton (R) of Arkansas reiterated this week that waterboarding would be fairly administered by Trump if necessary. 鈥淲aterboarding isn鈥檛 torture,鈥� Senator Cotton told CNN.
The remarks give the impression that US national security policy is simply a matter of presidential will. In fact, the national security apparatus has become so big and entrenched that presidents often find it frustratingly tough to carry out their own national security agendas, despite campaign promises popular with their base.
While running for president in 2008, then Sen. Barack Obama vowed to wind down the nation鈥檚 wars. Pressured by US military advisers, however, President Obama ultimately decided to send 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan.
It has become Washington lore that as he convened his second-ever meeting with the Afghanistan-Pakistan policy review group, Obama asked whether there was anyone among the 18 members gathered who thought the US should leave Afghanistan. No one raised a hand, as journalist Bob Woodward tells it.
鈥淭he dirty little secret here,鈥� said Brad Berenson, former associate counsel to the Bush White House, 鈥渋s that the United States government has enduring institutional interests that carry over from administration to administration and almost always dictate the position the government takes.鈥�
Going along with bureacrats聽
This is a recurring lament among modern-era presidents, notes Michael Glennon, former legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. On the heels of Dwight Eisenhower鈥檚 election, his predecessor Harry Truman remarked that he might find himself surprised upon assuming office.聽
鈥淗e鈥檒l sit here and he鈥檒l say, 鈥楧o this! Do that!鈥� and nothing will happen. Poor Ike 鈥� it won鈥檛 be a bit like the Army. He鈥檒l find it very frustrating,鈥� Mr. Glennon, now professor of international law at Tufts University, recounts in his book, 鈥淣ational Security and Double Government.鈥�
That鈥檚 because career bureaucrats look upon elected officials as temporary occupants, especially in the realm of national security. 鈥淚t has often happened in the War and Navy departments that the generals and the admirals instead of working for and under the secretaries, succeeded in having the secretaries act for and under them,鈥� Truman said.
And the career bureaucrats can always wait out the political appointees, Mr. Glennon notes. Indeed, of the Department of Defense鈥檚 668,000 civilian employees, for example, only 247 are appointed by the president.
This explains in large part why the national security policies of both Democratic and Republican presidents have been remarkably similar in the modern era, regardless of campaign trail promises.
Like his predecessor, President Obama took part in policies that he and his fellow Democrats previously criticized, for example, sending terror suspects overseas for detention and interrogation, and holding without trial US citizens accused of terrorism in military confinement.聽
Trump has promised to end what he described as Obama administration leniency on immigrants, which could include Islamic State adherents, he argues. In fact, the Obama administration deported more illegal immigrants during its first six years than the Bush administration did over eight years, according to a recent Pew Research study. Pew found that between 2009 and 2014, 2.4 million people were deported from the US.
The National Security Agency under Obama engaged in warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, as it did during the Bush administration.聽
Drone strikes, too, have escalated dramatically during his tenure. President Bush before him authorized some 50 drone strikes that killed 296 terrorist and an estimated 195 civilians in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. By contrast, President Obama has authorized 506 strikes that have killed 3,040 terrorists and some 400 civilians, according to a January analysis by the Council on Foreign Relations.
鈥淭he CIA gets what it wants,鈥� Obama told his advisers when the CIA asked for authority to expand its drone program, according to New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti in his book, "The Way of the Knife."
Presidents retain control
Part of the dynamic might be that once the president is barraged by top-secret briefings, he is 鈥渟cared straight鈥� by top intelligence officials. 鈥淲hen they enter into office and are exposed to classified information that they didn鈥檛 have before, they can change their views,鈥� says Eric Posner, professor at the University of Chicago Law School.聽
Yet Mr. Posner argues that there are plenty of examples, too, including the Iraq War, where the president does what he wants. Since the end of World War II, presidential powers have been expanding, he notes. It was the first time that the US military didn鈥檛 almost completely demobilize, but instead maintained relatively large standing armies with bases all over the world.
鈥淭he president more or less had almost complete control over these forces, starting in the 1940s and continuing today,鈥� Posner says. 鈥淯nless the president is weak-willed, there鈥檚 no particular reason why he might be intimidated by national security agencies.鈥澛�
What would happen if instead of stonewalling generals publicly defied a presidential order to, say, reinstitute water-boarding?
As the nation鈥檚 most respected institution, according to a number of surveys, the military could sway public opinion. But the prospect of officers disobeying the president and contravening the Constitution would set off alarm bells in many quarters.
In such an event, a president could seek backing from Congress and build public support for his views, Glennon notes. Faced with that, the generals would have little choice but to back down 鈥� or resign.
