One Guy's Viewpoint

Cutting Out the Salute Might Help

The U.S. military is always under civilian control, right? The President of the U.S. is Commander in Chief. And he is always a civilian, right? Of course. Always. So why is George W. Bush snapping off return salutes to those military sentries, mostly Marines in dress blues, that are caught by the TV news cameras as he comes or goes? The hand salute is a military courtesy. Civilians don't salute.

It was the same with Clinton I remember. Where did it start? I've seen newsreels of Truman when he was traveling and don't recall any salutes from him. Likewise with President Eisenhower, former General of the Army. No salutes recalled. There may have been, but I really doubt it. I don't know how far back this custom goes. But whenever it began, it's unnecessary and, I believe, harmful.

It's unnecessary because sentries "present arms." In that case no return salute is required. For instance, say we're at a football game, say at Kyle Field in College Station, Texas. When the color guard enters, all uniformed military personnel in the stands stand and present arms as the flag approaches. The salute continues until the flag is passed. Nobody expects a return salute from the flag. Then when the Star Spangled Banner is played it's the same. The military types stand at attention, facing the flag, and hold their salute until the music stops. Or a soldier somewhere, maybe at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, leaves a PX and, on the sidewalk, hears the first notes of Retreat. He'll turn toward the sound of the bugle and present arms as long as the sounds of Retreat continue. As I said, sentries present arms, whether the one being saluted is a military officer or a civilian of rank such as Commander in Chief, and the salute continues until the person honored has passed.

I believe the custom is bad because now we could have a civilian playing general. Obviously civilian control of the military has little effect where a President sees himself as a Napoleon. Is that happening now? Well, I don't know, but I'm not the one who began referring to somebody in particular as "King George."

posted by Burt @ 11:40 AM