The revolt of the admirals was over roles and missions (in which the USAF tried to displace traditional funding for some elements of national strategy away from the Navy). For those who have never worked in the pentagon, such inter-service squabbling takes place all the time, on a smaller scale, admittedly, with the USAF as the usual interloper attempting to take funding from the army and navy.
The debate taking place now is more serious; lives of soldiers already deployed in a war zone are at stake and the occupant of the white house seems indifferent to their well being.
I can't think of a single instance in U.S. military history where the president (so called in this case, because in my mind, his legitimacy is still questionable) has shown such cavalier disregard for the lives of soldiers in a war zone.
The Air Force has long had a superiority complex when it comes to the Navy and Marines. The name of the general escapes me, but the ranking Air Force general in the European theater towards the end of WW2, made the statement “why do we need a Navy?”