I’m sorry you seem to view the President as some kind of Godhead or graven image without whom nothing can be legitimate. But that’s not how the Constitution works. Under its Constitutional authorities, Congress authorized use of force against all those associated with the 9/11 planners. That makes deployments to Afghanistan legal. Long before that, and also under its Constitutional authorities, Congress passed statutes governing the armed forces, which establish the legality of orders independent of the Presidential Golden Calf.
That’s basic constitutional law and a necessary component of understanding the freedoms one would presume to protect.
This is the relevant text of the SJ Res 23 authorizing the use of force (found at http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html ) :
“a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
So which military officer did Congress authorize to use force against Afghanistan?
Lind referenced Congress’ delegation of powers and authority to military officers. She said that makes it so that lawful orders can be given regardless of whether there is a valid CINC. So what military officer was specifically authorized by Congress to use “appropriate force” in Afghanistan - which would include the support operations of medical personnel such as Lakin?