This past weekend, President Obama made a surprise trip to Afghanistan, during which he doffed his civilian coat and tie and donned a "Commander-in-chief" leather flight jacket provided to him by the Air Force. I suppose the president believed he could better connect with the troops by wearing "less formal" garb; I suppose as well he thought he was honoring the military by wearing the flight jacket associated with Air Force One. But as snazzy as the president may have looked in his flight jacket (and I liked my jacket when I was in the Air Force), his decision to don it was a blunder.
No, I'm not saying the president is a military wannabe; I'm not saying the president is a poseur. What I'm saying is that the president, whether he knows it or not, is blurring the vitally important distinction between a democratically-elected, thoroughly civilian, commander-in-chief and the military members the president commands in our -- the people's -- name.
Though the president commands our military, he is not, strictly speaking, a member of it. Rather, as our highest ranking public servant, he stands above it, exercising the authority granted to him by the Constitution to command the military in the people's name.
Whenever the president addresses our troops, he should, indeed he must, appear in civilian clothing, because that's precisely what he is: a civilian, a very special one, to be sure, but that's what he is -- and what he always must be.
We must wean ourselves from Hollywood illusions that our president should parade around like the ultimate fighter pilot (even if, once upon a time, he flew fighters, like George W. Bush did). This is not the set of "Independence Day." Neither is it a photo op.
President Obama admires Abraham Lincoln. When Lincoln visited General George McClellan during our Civil War, he didn't don a military greatcoat; instead, with army tents and uniformed men all around him, Lincoln dared to look incongruous in his dress civilian clothes, complete with top hat.
Incongruous? Perhaps. But look closely at the photo: Never was Lincoln's authority clearer.
And that's the point: Lincoln knew he was a civilian commander-in-chief. Precisely by not donning military clothing, he asserted his ultimate civilian authority over McClellan and the army.
Please, President Obama (and all future presidents): Put away the flight jackets and other militaria when you address our troops. Appear as the civilian commander-in-chief that you are. By doing so, you remind our troops that they are citizens first, and soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen second.
As our wars grow ever longer, that's a reminder that should loom ever larger.
Professor Astore currently teaches History at the Pennsylvania College of Technology in Williamsport, PA. He writes regularly for TomDispatch.com and can be reached at wastore@pct.edu.
Given the quote from your story, I have a different perception of the POTUS recent apparel choice. I thought of how many of us receiving clothing gifts, wear them because we like them and/or as appreciation towards the giver. It’s no different than when during the campaign controversy over Sen. Obama not wearing a flag pin, that after he was given one to wear by a Vet, he chose to wear it in appreciation of that Vet’s sacrifice and service.
IMO had the POTUS not worn the jacket, some would’ve used this to distract from the real purpose of the Afghanistan trip and would’ve said the Commander-in-Chief snubbed the military. I can imagine the outcry from many on the right who would’ve accused the POTUS of being too elitist to wear the jacket and thought it wasn’t good enough for him (especially since some on HP think it’s too cheesy/cheap looking). Yep, they would’ve had a field day. Talk of the First Lady baring arms would’ve been mild in comparison to “POTUS Bans Bomber Jacket”. So for me, I’m glad the President chose to wear it. I think it faired well for him and the troops saw their commander as one of them. And I’d rather read this one incidental story on HP than witness endless days of hyperbole from the MSM
I'm talking the whole works.
I was hoping that she actually signed up and was being shipped out but I guess she couldn't give up her red pumps.
I thought the bush/rove attempt to blur the distinction between the military and civilian to be a major threat to democracy, as was making the military the prime institution in america.
I would like to see the president (all of them) discontinue the perfunctory salute to the guard as he steps off Marine One helicopter.
If the C in C is a civilian, then a salute from the brim is inappropriate. Civilians salute with the right hand over the heart.
The author's claim is that the President (any President, this is not a partisan hit) should appear before the military in civilian clothes, not because he doesn't deserve military garb, but because it symbolizes the military's true role as servants of the people. When the President appears in military garb, this important message is diminished.
What's next: professional athletes denouncing anyone who wears team logo clothing on the grounds that only team members can wear such clothes? It's just a jacket!
Look, I know it's a small matter, but what our presidents choose to wear in military settings does send signals.
I assume the president was just trying to show solidarity with the troops. But I believe he can express this solidarity without dressing in a military-issue flight jacket.
And I'd like to see all future presidents stick to mufti, especially when they're addressing the troops. Signals are important.
It's a jacket. It can be purchased from pretty much any given store that sells men's clothing as well as specialty leather stores like Walter Dyer Leathers and aviation supply outfits like Sporty's Pilot's Shop. Its original purpose was to keep aircrews warm in uninsulated and unheated 1940s aircraft, and even present-day military pilots view it largely as a fashion statement than anything else. Suffice to say I question your intentions in this, given your own bio's vagueness about your slot in the Air Force and the 10:1 ratio of support to combat personnel.
As a civilian in constant contact with members of the military, I find this a sad attempt to drum up some strange issue of civil-military relations. Last time I checked, dress slacks and a white button-down are not military garb -- nor was the "flight jacket" any different than the one I bought after I watched Top Gun when I was seven. It bore no insignia, no rank -- other than the Air Force One patch and the name plackard identifying him as the Commander and Chief.
Next time, might I suggest you wait for an actual story before you write about it?
My point is that our president, whoever he (or she) is, is a civilian, and he represents civilian authority over the military. He blurs that vitally important civilian distinction when he dons military clothing. I don't care if his name is George W. Bush or Barack Obama.
My model here is Dwight D. Eisenhower. A five-star general, Ike always wore civilian clothes when he was elected president. You'd never catch him donning a military-issue flight jacket precisely because he recognized the important symbolism of his new role as the civilian commander-in-chief.
The dress codes were quite different in the 50's for men and women. No man would be allowed in church unless he was wearing a suit. Women were not allowed in public in pants.
Eisenhower was also the commander and chief of an all draft military. If Eisenhower gave any thought to the optics of what he was wearing maybe it was because of his concerns about the military.
From his last speech as President.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper
I wonder how Nixon would have dressed if he had been jailed or what Cheney & W will wear when they go to jail.
We, both, remain civilians.
Everyone knows Obama is a civilian.