Over and over again in the Primaries, and no doubt ad nauseam during the general election, we hear candidates spar over which of them would make the better "Commander-in-Chief". We are asked to choose a President based upon whose qualities are best suited to a "commander".
This is despicable nonsense.
Let us all please stop conflating "commander in chief" with leadership.
For the hundred millionth time, the President is commander in chief only of the military. S/he is not "commander in chief" of foreign policy, or of the treasury, or of the postal service, etc. The President is the head of state and of the Executive Branch of government, not the "commander" of either.
The Constitution was drawn to ensure that the military be under the control of civilian government, and not to ensure, by the CIC wording, that a person with military training or skill in military command be head of state and government. Indeed, of our 43 Presidents, only two have actually commanded military actions in the field while serving as President: George Washington, who lead the militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, and James Madison, who commanded a battery in the defense of Washington, DC in the War of 1812.
No person whom we elect, at least this year, will have the knowledge or ability to be an active military commander. That's why we have generals and admirals.
It ill befits us to consider as a qualification for President the fitness or not of a person to be a military commander. We have not (I hope) become that war-like a people. When we select a President, we should look for the qualities of a leader, not of a "commander".
Let's put that silly theme to rest.