Talk:Commander-in-chief

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Does that make the president of the US a military officer?

No. It's a little bit of a weird situation, because for instance military personnel are expected to salute him, but not vice versa - the saluting President was an idea of Reagan's IIRC. All military officers have uniforms, but not the President, etc etc. Somebody who really knows this stuff (which is not me) could flesh out some details for this article.

Yes, it does make him a Military officer, see below under Job function. LotteryOhYah 04:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the president is not a military officer. The President of the United States in no way falls under the UCMJ.--RLent 21:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Where is the documentation for the October 24th Rumsfeld statement? "On October 24, 2002, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld announced that the title of "Commander-in-Chief" would thereafter be reserved for the President, and that armed forces CINCs would shorten their title to "commander.""

Political Garbage Removal[edit]

The "War on Terrorism" section should be removed, or else rewritten from scratch. The definition of the "unitary executive theory" is completely incorrect. The UET has nothing to do with the scope of power as CIC. The statements that follow that definition are likewise wrong, except for the last sentence in the section which is simply a non-factual weasel statement. Equally bad are the three footnotes, containing nothing but 19 references to opinion columns! Since when does an encyclopedia entry back up its facts with references to opinion columns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.157.13 (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Article[edit]

I suggest we make a new article based on the title "Commander In Chief of the United States of America". LotteryOhYah 04:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CINC Quotes[edit]

All of those quotes are from instances where they are discussing his role as the military commander, and as such is proper IMO. Now if they used CINC when discussing directly social issues then there would be a cause of concern, and a notable quote. PPGMD

There is *way* too much detail on the US politics here.

Since the September_11,_2001_attacks on the World Trade Center and the declaration of the War on Terror, American media has increasingly refered to the President as the "Commander-in-Chief", even in civil affairs. This is often done when discussing the restriction of civil rights, such as with the Patriot Act, suggesting a comparison between the President and the military leaders of dictatorial countries; but ambiguous statements are also regulary featured in statements of personalities favourable to the Bush administration :

  • Zell Miller : "Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief." [1]
  • Pat Buchanan : "Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering to terror." [2].
  • Dick Cheney : "Just as surely as the Nazis during World War Two and the Soviet communists during the Cold War, the enemy we face today is bent on our destruction. As in other times, we are in a war we did not start, and have no choice but to win. Firm in our resolve, focused on our mission, and led by a superb commander in chief, we will prevail. " [3].
  • "A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief when it comes to your security." (Good illustration, since the "Commander in Chief" part of the presidential charge always comes to security , this somehow implies that the "commander in chief" has taken over other parts of the presidency -- Bush campaign line, cited by John F. Kerry [4])

Roadrunner 07:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What about keeping only the last quote ? Rama 13:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This isn't true

Subordinate to the President of the United States are the Commanders of the regional Unified Commands. This model is followed in many other nations.

The US is the only military that has enough global reach to require the creation of regional unified commands. Most other militaries actually have the service chiefs of staff in the chain of command which the United States does not.

Roadrunner 07:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image[edit]

What was so POV about the image ? Perhaps the formulation was not adequte, but I don't understand ow the image in itself is POV. Is it actually appropriate to salute for the President ? I've heard that Reagan was the first to do this and that it is not in the protocole, can anyone confirm and infirm this ? Rama 00:24, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First you reffered to President Bush, as President Bush Jr. What does the President getting saluted have to do with the idea of CinC? And finally it adds nothing to the article. PPGMD
Well, I had honestly no idea that refering to "President Bush Jr." would be so offfensive; I suppose that in any case, this could be addressed by replacing this by "President George W. Bush" or something unambiguous like this, could it not ?
The point of the photograph, and its relationship with the title, is that saluting is usually a military custom; the President of the USA is a civil title; thus, there is something remarkable, from the protocol point of view, that the President of the USA would militarly salute the troops: either a traditional oddity, or a formal manifestation of a "military aspect" of the function. I don't know wether I have made my notice understandable ? Thank you for caring. Rama 09:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Military members must salute members with a higher rank than themselves. It is a sign of respect. As a side note, failure to salute an officer is a sign of insubordination, and is against the law of the military.

The President is both the civilian AND military head of the government. He is a civilian as is every member down the succession line.

It is his role as head of the military that officers are saluting.

(please don't be offended if I use the term officers, I mean all members of the military)

Political Implications Section[edit]

I agree with the dividing up into Country sections. But the political implications section is worthless. None of the quotes you give justify your criticism. All are on Security issues, or relating to security. For some reason it has become vogue to call the POTUS, Commander in Chief when it comes to security issues, but it seems like they use it to make him sound more important. But it's pretty rare that the administration using CinC for anything other than security issues, but even then it's not that common, and they prefer the traditional title of President.

Unless you can come up with quotes that show anyone other than his critics (remember quite a number of his critics, like to associate President Bush with Hitler, so using a military title fits their agenda) using the title CinC for the POTUS on a regular basis, I will remove it tomorrow. PPGMD 16:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The quote by Zell Miller, for instance (a supporter of Bush, if I recall correctly) clearly gives the impression the the President would be the Commander in Chief of the United States of America, not only of the US Forces. This is naturally a slip of language (I doubt that a parallel with Hitler's title of Führer could be done without reserves), however, the mediatisation of the title seems to me like somethin worth mentionning. I do not recall Presidents Bush (the first one), or Clinton, being refered to as "Commander in Chief" very frenquently, even though the USA did take part in military operations at the time.
It is certainly possible that the section, as it is, could be perfected, but I wonder wether removing it completely would be fair; do you think the passage is irreparable ? Rama 17:04, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Zel Miller quote has directly to do with military side of the President. He is saying that you can't have the highest commander of the troops be someone who has called them murders in the past. To me, the CinC title is used only when talking about the military commander side of the Presidency, and is appropriate. It's simply that it's become vogue with the press, and soon after even the politicians are using it, but almost all only use when referring to military and security issues. And has very little to do with politics, simply the media using the name more, which the politicians picked up on. I would support a rewrite to this effect.
I also think that the section could use a more complete rewrite, going into more detail of the US system. Starting with the Defense Reorginzation Act would confuse readers that aren't as up with US politican structure.PPGMD 17:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Parts of this section really need to be deleted because of bias. LotteryOhYah 03:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Title?[edit]

What is our justification in calling Commander-in-Chief a "title" for the POTUS? I always learned about CinC being a role of the President (like head of state, head of government, party leader, etc.) rather than a title. I know this is a subtle distinction, but I think it's significant. The Constitution certainly supports this characterization just as well.

69.47.159.58[edit]

there should be no poltics of any sort in what should be a simple dictionary style entry.

for cripe's sake! take your politics to the message boards

This is not a dictionnary, this is an encyclopedia. If you want a dictionary, please see http://wiktionary.org/ . Thank you. Rama 05:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Job Function (US)[edit]

The "Commander In Chief" was used by the founding fathers as a way of saying that the President is the head of the armed forces. The military is a pyramid with the President of the United States at the top. It is part of the executive function of the office. The job of the President is to lead the country in a time of war, especially from a military standpoint, although he may leave the planning of this to other officers, if necessary.

He cannot be considered to be a dictator in the technical sense, because he has to be elected for each four year period prior to gaining this title. Note the distinction between this, and the case of where a military coup takes place, and a general assumes control of a nation. No General can legally take control of the United States highest office (technically) because they are not elected.

Should the generals decide to kill the President, the office falls on the Vice President, and down the line of command. The modern day notion is that a "civilian" will always have control of the military. The idea is that the American people will always have control of their own military and not be subjects to it, like in a Kingdom. Power rises from the bottom to the top, not vice versa.

The founding fathers were just as wary of military dictatorship as they were of Kings, so they gave the President the title so that he might be able to remove Generals at will. Technically the President could dissolve the whole military, if necessary. For example, in the case of a President who was opposed to the idea of going to an undeclared war, one which Congress could not muster enough votes to declare. In order to add top officials, it has been customary for them to be confirmed by the Senate, giving a balance of power. The President can fire without consultation, but he cannot hire without it except perhaps temporarily in the case of a recess appointment.

Note that the President is still accountable to Congress and that Congress has the right to impeach the President, given a 2/3's majority, should it so choose. If this were to happen, the Vice-President would become the Commander in Chief, and the President would no longer control the military. This can be considered as either a weakness or a strength in the system. In general, you want the person the people elected as President to serve, but should things turn out badly enough, you also want the option to remove that person. And if you do remove that person, you don't want them reaching using the military.

The importance of the Commander in Chief function is that it allows the President to plan wars in wartime, and to direct military operations in peace time. Because of this, there is an expectation that the President will have served in the military at some point in his or her life adding practical knowledge to this position. Several Presidential candidates and many hopefuls have come from the military. Dwight D. Eisenhower served as a General before he assumed the nations highest military position.

Another side note.. In the film (by the same name) where Nixon is threatened with impeachment, he considers his role as military head. He decides that he would not use the military. Nixon argued throughout the film that his role was comparable to that of, but not that of a King. A King for four years, if you will. Most modern politicians would not assert they were kings.

Technically, if Congress was not able to impeach the President, and still acted as though it had, the military could be used to put down whatever insurection there was. This is a check on Congress as well. Though a worrying one.

The most important military function the President has as Commander In Chief is control over the Nuclear Weapons of the US. This may be the most important function he has period given the stakes involved.

LotteryOhYah 04:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this, there is an expectation that the President will have served in the military at some point in his or her life adding practical knowledge to this position. I can't agree there. There is no requirement of military service to be president, so it can't be said that there is an expectation of military service. You could say, however, that many in the public consider military service to be a plus.--RLent 21:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An improper link[edit]

A U. S. Supreme Court case from 1864 is a link to this article. A fix is needed. See: volume #68. Superslum 03:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sink[edit]

If the last name is Sink, then he will be known as CINC Sink. Just a thought. Jigen III 20:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Commander is a real term[edit]

I noticed that in the article, it notes that "In Fiction" the term Supreme Commander is used for the main commander of a nations military force. However, according to the "Dictionary of Military Terms", it has a listing for Supreme Commander as an unofficial term used by others to descirbe the leader of such forces. --Eldarone (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

who is the commander in chif of the armed forces[edit]

he is the commander of a nation's military forces or sighificant element of those forces —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.107.163 (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NATO[edit]

I spy that the German language version of this page has a section on NATO (I can't read it though). Does NATO have a commander-in-chief? BigBlueFish (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It basicially gives a brief form of what can be read in NATO#Military structure. NATO uses the term Supreme Allied Commander for the head of a Strategic Command, of which there are two. In a general encyclopedia, one would perhaps think that the term Supreme Commander would redirect to this page, rather than being a page describing a computer game with just a hatnote to this article, but that's another story. And then there is a Chairman of the NATO Military Committee. Tomas e (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4chan Spam[edit]

4chan is currently vandalizing this.

Please revert when they are gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.176.0.55 (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom?[edit]

Why does this page not contain any information about the Commander-in-chief of the united kingdom?, the UK's armed forces has the 2nd/3rd higest Budget in the world, is currantly supporting the USA in the war on terror and is the only western country that has been invloved in modern warfare in the last 20 years, and the name commander in cheif originates from the UK, so it should be added Alexsau1991 (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the information from the UK armed forces page about Command Alexsau1991 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

presidentual powers[edit]

does the US president need any support from any other house before makeing a decision like bombing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.184.30 (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Federalist #69[edit]

Federalist No. 69 spelled out that the President would not be commander-in-chief until Congress had first declared war. The governors of the states are ordinarily the commanders-in-chief of their states' respective State Defense Forces, National Guard, or other military forces, except when those forces are called into "active service of the United States" (a process sometimes referred to as "federalizing").

No it doesn't. Federalist No. 69 simply restates the constitution and says

Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies -- all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature

Roadrunner (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Commander-in-chief" derives from Latin "Imperator"?[edit]

What?!

I just don't see the corellation, and it really isn't explained adequately (or at all, for that matter) in the article.

Will someone please shed some light on how we get from the word "Imperator" to the term "Commander-in-chief"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.204.115 (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

legal definition[edit]

What about the legal rights given (or not given) to the President of the US, as commander-in-chief? The discussion on what the president may or may not order his troops to do is entirely missing here. If you know more about it, please add. -- 92.229.98.128 (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commander-in-chiefChief[edit]

The article title is missing a capital! --Kurtle (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"and thus often a strange paradox is created as the Commander-In-Chief usually must take direction from officers whom he outranks, especially in a crisis situation."

This is not a strange paradox at all. A constitutional monarch does this in the military and other fields -- It is how a parliamentary democracy works. In the case of a US President unlike the Queen of Britain he does not have to take the advise proffered. So the US president usually "<stike>must takes direction from officers whom he outranks", but there is no must about it and Presidents such as Truman and Kennedy have listened to advise (not direction) but have made their own decisions on the dropping of the bomb and the Cuban blockade.-- PBS (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commander in Chief in Egypt has to be edited!![edit]

Who is Commander in Chief in Egypt now? Mubarak has resigned? The Supreme Council of the armed Forces is the administrative!

Please someone has to clearify the Situation - pls. post answer to me: torusernet =at= googlemail =dot= com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.148.98 (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bring troops home that are in Afghanistan[edit]

Bold text Hi Commander-in Chief!

My name is Polly Lee,and MY Fiance is in Afghanistan,and he and his troop has been there for 10 months already!I am trying to get him home,we where ot be married on OCT 3,2011! HIS TROOP IS 3rd Beigade Combat 1 st Infatry Division,and he thought that he and his troop would be home befor now.We has plans to have military wedding with his troop with us on this Great Day for US! Due to them not coming home befor the OCT we do not know what to do about this matter! It would Please me and my fiance sgt Les Dodson for all of them to be brought home some time this month even if it is only for 60 days so that we all can be joined in this happy Day! They have been there for 10 months all ready and would love to have your help for this Day to be one in a life Time for ME and HIM and the troops that he servies with. I could pay for him to come home ,but the troop would still be there and not with us on our GREAT DAY! THANK YOU VERY MUCH WITH THIS MATTER! I PRAY THAT YOU CAN HELP US WITH THIS! Polly Lee leepolly30@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.195.151 (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obama "44th person"[edit]

"The current Commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces is Barack Obama, the 44th person to hold the position."

Technically, wouldn't Obama be the 43rd person to hold the position? He is the 44th President, but since Grover Cleveland was the 22nd AND 24th President, there are only 43 people to have held the position. Sam (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One World Government Being Ushered in Wholesale by the Obama Regime and Our Rogue Government[edit]

This was inspired when reading an article about a Company in Oregon that is building and marketing a Drone Jammer that people can buy to protect themselves from being spied on by Government Drones that are now being used by the U.S. Government and some cities and states, all in violation of the U.S. Constitution on all kinds of levels, not the least of which is Privacy Rights as in the Privacy Act of 1967 for one, and the 4th Amendment, and First Amendment as well. Anyway, thanks. If you want to read, great, if not, just delete. Thanks—Jerome

One World Order Begins In Earnest (2009 to present) (Started with Woodrow Wilson and has expanded ever since.) By Jerome Ennis The USA has plans in place for UN forces who have been training with our military for decades on U.S. soil and in other countries, to be used against the U.S. citizenry should civil war breakout or if the U.S. government decides to Declare Martial Law and Suspension of our Constitutional Rights. This is not a Conspiracy Theory. This is fact and has been going on for some time. It really took off during the 1980's. Blue Helmeted Foreign UN forces were training at U.S. military bases all over the country, including Mountain Warfare Training in North Georgia, North Carolina and other cities, as well as at Fort Benning, Ga. and many other bases.

This has been a joint U.S./NATO/UN plan for decades. The idea being that Foreign Troops with Blue Helmets (UN Forces) would be more willing to arrest or murder U.S. Citizens when ordered to do so than would our own Soldiers. That is how the world is operating now, and the U.S. is now getting ready to add the USA to the World War that is now being Waged at the Behest of the United Nations and NATO in Africa, The Middle East, and other Hot Spots. Our government is using our military with NATO and UN Forces to fight and kill Other Countries Citizens that Fight Back.

The aim is for the UN to be the Seat of Government For The World. One world United under Threat From Foreign Soldiers on "Enemy Soil". The USA is now considered an Enemy of the One World Government, and that is what the Obama Regime with Collusion from our Congress and Fascist Bureaucratic Department Heads and Supreme Court Judges, is preparing us for. They (all of them) aim to collapse our economy, and when Austerity Measures Really Come, they know Riots and Looting and Shooting will break out in the streets all over the country, and then the Foreign Troops with the aid of Local and State Governments and National Guard will be called in to Put Down the Riots and the New World Order Will Be Installed, and anybody who Refuses or Retaliates will be summarily Gunned Down by any means necessary, INCLUDING DRONE Strikes On U.S. Citizens, will begin. That is why the Obama Regime Refused to Answer Rand Paul's and Other Conservative Republicans questions when asked about Shooting Down Citizens on U.S. soil if Obama Deems them Enemies of the Regime. And, no matter what the official answer in “Spoken Words Only” from the Obama Regime, with no Written Guarantees, the aim and plan is the same. They are going to do anything they want with these drones either at home or abroad. Their spoken and written words are meaningless. They are absolutely Fascist and Fascism Dictates No Opposition Allowed in Any Form, spoken, written or action.

That is the plan, and that is exactly what they will do when the time comes. This is the real Reason That Our Gun And Ammo Rights are being First Limited and Later Ended at Gun Point If Necessary. They, the OWO and Our Government's Part In It, want as little Opposition Voices and Forces as possible to protect the OWO attackers. Why else would China, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and other countries be concerned with 2nd Amendment Rights in the USA? They are all part of the OWO and they are getting ready to Force the USA citizenry into the Control of the OWO.

(Side Note: The reason our government refuses to Defend Our Borders and refusing to do anything about the Invading Forces who are already “In Country” and more coming each day, will join in with the UN Invading Forces because these Foreign Invaders basically hate the Regular Law Abiding U.S. Citizens and they come from Third World Countries where Tin Hat Fascist Dictators are in Power and are already a Part of the One World Order, which was the aim of World Communism past and present. The Communists with help and aid of the Obama Regime with Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice doing the Negotiating have now joined in a Pact With Radical Islam, the same as Hitler did during WWII.)

This did not start Right Now. It is just Right Now, that they plan to Put the Final Nails Into USA Independence As a Free and Sovereign Nation. This is not conspiratorial, this is fact, yet you will be called a Conspiracy Theorist by the Powers that Be. They do this to Demonize You and Make People who might Listen To and Believe You and Join Forces With You, think that your either one: A Nut Case or two: A possible Terrorist. That is why the TEA Party Movement has been Demonized By both Political Parties and the Fascist Bureaucrat Heads like HLS Department Head, Janet Napolitano. That is why Homeland Security is Buying Up As Much Ammo as Possible along with all the AR-15's and other Rifles that can be used for Self Defense Against An Invading Force or Home Invaders. The Invading UN Forces will be Home Invaders and they want to take as few casualties On Their Side as possible while taking out as many of us that they can in the shortest period of time, so that the USA infrastructure is not Damaged Too Much so that Invading Forces can Occupy our Buildings and Homes. This is the real aim, and it all started way back when Woodrow Wilson, a Communist Professor was POTUS, and over time has been pushed further and further, and they now believe the time is Right to Move on the USA Takeover and our Government is Behind It All. The National Defense Act of 1958 and the Creation of the So-Called National Security Council were the beginnings of what we now have with The So-Called Patriot Act and other Totalitarian and Fascist Policies we have allowed our government to implement over the past 50 or so years. Now, Armed Drones over USA cities? Surveillance Drones Over USA Cities and countryside, mapping out everything in the USA and compiling in a Huge Data Base being put together by Companies such as Google, Apple, IBM, Microsoft and other Tech Companies that have huge multi-billion dollar contracts with the U.S. Government to compile all the date and to put together the Technology to Keep Tabs on Every Move You Make and Every Word you Dare Utter, and Every Step You Might Take to Either Escape or to Fight Back. Money is being Electronically Monitored as well as every Phone Call You Make and Every time You Log Onto Your Computers as in Right Now. That is why Face Book, for example, was able to Go Public. That was with US. Government Help in order to Further Consolidate all Computer Sites.

When the TEA Party first started in 2009, Janet Napolitano came out and said the TEA Party Members and Movement was A Terrorist Movement and that Veterans, and others who Dared Expose or to talk about our government and how they are destroying our country were to be considered as enemies and possible terrorists. They called us Racists, Terrorists, and all sorts of other things in order To Demonize The TEA Party to limit it's growth. That is what happens anytime the government is preparing for War. They Identify and Then Demonize A "Perceived Enemy" over and over and eventually when the government Strikes The Perceived Enemy, the citizenry that has been conditioned and brainwashed into hating the “Perceived Enemy” (The Enemy that the government's repeated Propaganda Campaign has Conditioned and Brainwashed You Into Believing as Fact) will join forces in helping the government destroy their friends and neighbors, who otherwise were their friends and family.

This has always been the Rhetoric In the Art Of War, when a war is being staged to start at the drop of a Hat after some “Perceived Event” or “Perceived Threat” that the Government Has Already Brainwashed the Citizenry Into Backing when the Attacks Begin, and therefore to get as Many Brainwashed Stooges Behind the Government and the Actions as they can, and therefore be willing to Attack Their Fellow Friends, Neighbors and USA Citizens in General, because the Government Has Lied To Them and Disarmed Them, and made them believe that the Lies the Government Told Them is The Truth.

Obama, McCain, Pelosi, Reid, and all the rest of the DC Capitol Hill Gang, all know this is happening and they are going along with it, because they feel they, themselves, will be safe and rich at the same time. They love personal power, wealth and prestige more than they love the country they are supposedly defending and serving.

The Lobbyists who Have Controlled Our Elected Officials and Bureaucratic Department and Agency Heads Tell Them What to Do and Not To Do, and the politicians pretend to Represent We The People and our interests and the interests of a Free and Sovereign USA, but that is all a sham. They are Bought and Sold by the Lobbyists who are Profiteering and Sharing With the Elected Politicians who become Mult-Millionaires after a couple of Terms In DC as Senator or Congress Member. They sell out We The People, The Country and our National Sovereignty. They know what they are doing, and that is why Lindsey Graham and John McCain jump on, ridicule and demonize Paul Ryan, Allen West, Rand Paul, Sara Palin and anybody else Identified as Conservative or Tea Party Affiliation. Karl Rove, Krauthammer, O'Reilly, and all the rest of the so-called Fair and Balanced FAUX News are the Propaganda Voices of the so-called Republican Party. Yes, they Represent the Main Stream Republicans who are just One Half of the Illicit Regime we now have Posing as a Divided Congress. There is no Division, and they know it. They have to Pretend to Be Opposed To One Another in order for the General Public Believing in the System and believing our Votes Really Matter.

No matter which party is in or out of party, nothing ever changes or is undone, but is only added on to with more and more intrusions on our freedoms by government and the once slow and now Rapid Destruction of Our Monetary System and Economy and at the same Time Downsizing and Disarming Our Military, for they fear that their might just be a Few Warrior Generals Left to Fight Back against an Invading Army from Germany, Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Russia and other Nations that have Already Acquiesced to the NEW World Order. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Leon Panetta and all the other Scoundrels in the Obama Regime have been Putting In The Final Details and Agreements to Put the USA into the ONE World Order. The Political Generals and Civilians now Running the Military care more for their own Individual Power and Riches than they do in the USA and Our Constitution. They are all co-conspirators with the OWO Regime with Obama now being the Head of that Organization in the USA until we elect the Next Puppet, either Democrat or Republican.

That is why Both Democrats and Establishment Republicans Hate and Demonize the TEA Party. They see the TEA Party is a Threat to Their Positions and the TEA Party is seen as a Threat because the TEA Party Candidates are Exposing these Frauds, Subversives, Perverts and Criminals who now run our country, especially at the National Level. Jerome Ennis, 17 March 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.126.155 (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common anglophone military ranks[edit]

In the introduction section, why is the table entitled "Common anglophone military ranks" repeated directly below? We have two, with no discernible difference between them. Did somebody intend to put another table there, do a copy-and-paste job, and then screw up when updating the second table? I don't want to remove it right now because I'm afraid I don't know enough about the situation and I don't want to screw up somebody else's stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcroner (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This term is not hyphenated![edit]

This article makes the repeated mistake of hyphenating this term. It is not hyphenated, as any style guide will tell you. The correct term is "commander in chief."

Here's the New York Times on this question, showing that the hyphens are wrong: http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/too-many-commas/?_r=0

North Korea[edit]

The North Korean constitution may be unclear as to who is head of state, but it certainly is not "the Chairman of the National Defence Commission who in article 100 is described as the "highest military leading organ of State power and an organ for general control over national defense of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea". This is a purely military position.101.98.74.13 (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Commander-in-chief. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Commander-in-chief. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Commander-in-chief. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Commander-in-chief. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Commander-in-chief. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


India[edit]

Is there any reason for India to be given a particular mention right at the start of the article? I'm not denying India should be in the article, but adding it there just seems like someone over-emphasising one state for no apparent reason. If nobody objects, I propose to remove it in a few days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.90.169 (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DoneGaruda28 (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Table of ranks[edit]

Why is there a table of comparative military ranks here? It's a very nice table, although perhaps limited in application to countries that follow the British pattern, but as far as I can see has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Lower Slobovia might have a completely different set of ranks and still have a CinC. I don't want to just arbitrarily delete it, since evidently many editors have no problem with it. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commander-in-chief&oldid=1194075957"