It was a quiet night in September in 480 BCE off the coast of southeastern Greece. All was serene - except for the hundreds of Greek warships that floated atop the still waters brimming with grim, tense soldiers ready to serve their country. This is the scene the night before the Battle of Salamis, fought between a motley coalition of bickering Greeks and the imperial army of the Persian Empire. In the eyes of the Greeks, the Persians and modern historians, the battle was one of the most important in the history of Europe and Western Asia.
Yet if one were actually present in the war rooms of these respective foes, there would have been a noticeable difference in conduct. In the Persian camp, the will of Xerxes, king of the Persians, would have been paramount, as his role as supreme commander and leader of the expedition was unquestionable. Yes, he had a council of war that included representatives of the various ethnicities that fought in the name of Persia, but it was ultimately the word of Xerxes that prevailed. The discussion would have been calm, collected and, in a word, imperial. All propositions were made to cater to the favor of the king.
If, somehow, one were to be present simultaneously at the discussion of the Greeks, he or she would be left wondering how these Greeks ever won the battle at all. In the discussion of war, everyone spoke, and no one hesitated to speak exactly their mind. All commanders had an equal say in the affair (though there was a symbolic figurehead), and at one point, the discussion nearly turned to blows. In contrast to the collected, Xerxes-led council of Persians, the Greek discussion was raucous and democratic. It was also the very thing that saved them.
The Greeks ended up choosing a path of least resistance - one that maximized the ability for the Greeks to retreat after their much-expected defeat. One voice stood out though: the commander Themistocles passionately and eloquently argued for a fight at Salamis proper. His reasoning and ruses probably ended up winning the battle of Salamis. It is not Themistocles, rather, but the democratic Greek tradition of allowing all an equal say - even in matters of war - that proved essential to the Greek victory. Xerxes' unswerving commitment to his primacy as leader of the Persian Empire, along with the trickery of Themistocles, on the other hand, signaled his doom.
Recently, we have been faced with the same sort of dilemma. That is, do we wish to be led by a Themistocles or a Xerxes? For Vice President Dick Cheney, that matter has already been decided. Chris Wallace, the host of "FOX News Sunday" asked Cheney in an interview what he thought of Congress' role in the war.
"Well, Congress certainly has a significant role to play here," Cheney said. "They have clearly been instrumental…in terms of…funds to support the force and the activities in the global conflict as well as our operations in Iraq."
When Wallace responded that the role Congress would then have was merely consultative, Cheney volleyed back.
"The president is the commander-in-chief," Cheney said. "He's the one who has to make these tough decisions. He's the guy who's got to decide how to use the force and where to deploy the force. And the Congress, obviously, has to support the effort through the power of the purse. But you also - you cannot run a war by committee, you know."
But war by committee is exactly what the Greeks allowed in a modified sort of way. Cheney's intuition towards war is correct insofar as too many cooks spoil the broth. In the heat of battle, decisions must be made top down, and squabbling in the middle of a battle may result in many needless deaths - though I am sure many of my intrepid readers may argue that all war-inspired deaths are needless, but that is not for this discussion. In that regard good, strong leadership is essential, and adhering to these rules is necessary for the smooth operation of the unit. Yet what Cheney refers to is not a battle-time sort of leadership but a general sort of war-time leadership - one predicated on decisions that ultimately lead to battles.
Confusing the two is dangerous. It is in Cheney's opinion that neither the Congress nor the opinion of the people should be greatly considered.
"Polls change day by day, week by week," Cheney said. "I think the vast majority of Americans want the right outcome in Iraq."
Cheney instead insisted we should acknowledge the president's authority.
"The Constitution is very clear that the president is, in fact, under Article 2, the commander in chief [sic]," Cheney said.
Cheney is correct; Article Two, Section Two, Clause One of the Constitution does outline that "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States." However, there is also the qualifier of "when called into the actual Service of the United States."
Merely using the rhetoric that "You cannot run war by committee" flies in the face of some of the very ancient foundations of democratic ideology. One may scoff and say the modern world is nothing like the ancient one. Then are we to abandon our entire democratic foundation - one in which the president is a symbolic first among equals? The president should make difficult decisions. By popular vote, hopefully, he has been elected leader of the nation. But the president is after all just a part of the three branches of government and not a despot. Or so we would hope.
Alan Farahani is a Rutgers College senior, majoring in ancient history and linguistics.
Be the first to comment on this article!