Hail to the other commander in chief
Editorials

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ ... 70330/1090
New way to run a war
Friday's passage of a non-binding U.S. House resolution opposing President Bush's plan to deploy more troops in Iraq, and the following Senate debate on an identical resolution, constitute at least a rhetorical challenge to Bush's authority to make war policy. It's just the latest replay of an old conflict: Congress holds the purse strings, yet on military matters the president is the commander-in-chief, or as Bush would have it, the "decider."
Lee Harris, author of "Civilization and its Enemies," offers a tantalizing - though implausible, maybe impossibl
Bush should designate someone other than himself to be commander-in-chief.
The Constitution states that "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." But Harris points out a couple of caveats:
1. This clause was written for George Washington, who already had the title of commander-in-chief and who everybody assumed would become president.
2. It wasn't taken literally by the Founders after that, because his successor, John Adams, nominated Washington to become commander-in-chief again when it looked like we were about to go to war with France.
The Senate, in fact, confirmed Washington for the post, delivered his commission to him, and he accepted. It was official. But the war threat passed, and the matter dropped.
With Iraq strategy likely to dominate the national debate and take our focus from other pressing issues in the coming months, even years, the time may now be right to make someone other than the president our commander-in-chief.
Do I hear Colin Powell clearing his throat?