I understand where you're coming from I really do. I can even agree with you to a certain extent- this could be a big waste of time on the part of 'our side'; something that could just make us look stupid in the end and we could spend the time better in other ways. Fair enough.
But is it not a benefit to the Commander in Chief to demonstrate this to the public when officers in the military begin to question his legitimacy and refuse to obey his orders during a time of war?
I see that as quite a serious thing. At some point, if this (with the officers) keeps on, he's going to have to address this.
You said — But is it not a benefit to the Commander in Chief to demonstrate this to the public when officers in the military begin to question his legitimacy and refuse to obey his orders during a time of war?
—
Well, I don’t know... and I may be mistaken about this idea. But, it’s that I thought that these soldiers were loyal to the Office of President of the United States, as Commander in Chief, and not so much to the person in office.
And that’s why I was thinking that they wouldn’t do anything to de-legitimize the office or the commander’s position, which might create a negative precedent for future office holders in “justifying” one thing or another...
Anyway, that’s how I would be thinking about it — in terms of an “institution” rather than a “man”...
—
It’s like this..., it’s an “institution”, we have balance of powers, laws need to be followed, procedures done in certain specified ways, and whatever needs to be changed, have the change done in a predetermined and specified way...
My thinking is sort of a long-range and strategic sort of thinking.