Which brings us back to your original comment, posted oh so long ago. Orders are to be obeyed, unless they are illegal and then must be disobeyed. If Milley disobeyed orders then was it because he believed them to be illegal and felt duty bound to disobey them? And if that is the case then to you support Milley's decision.
That leads me to conclude Milley did not meet the DD test for subordinate conduct: “Right or wrong, the president is entitled to generals and admirals who obey the orders of the commander in chief.
Unless, of course, Milley met the JD criteria for disobeying orders. Is that the case?
Jeffersondem’s well-crafted post was made in the context of your hastily written comment endorsing uncritically, perhaps unwittingly, conventional wisdom: “Right or wrong, the president is entitled to generals and admirals who obey the orders of the commander in chief.”
The controversy over obedience to authority has been an ongoing debate, and I don't mean just in 20th century Europe.
So much so that the Man himself had to set the thing straight: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.”
For those that still respect the Declaration of Independence, like Jeffersondem, they believe the Founding Fathers worked through the obedience issues beautifully and beneficially.
Now, about Mr. Milley. He was wrong to apologize for being seen on the street with his commander in chief when President Trump paid respect to that racially integrated church which hours earlier has been subject to a firebombing attack by night-riders.
President Trump did a lesser wrong by not firing Milley for politicizing the president's courtesy call. Had President Trump taken that precaution, Mr. Milley would not have been in a position to give so much war materiel to terrorists, or to make secret covenants with the Red Chinese.