Why take an oath to the Constitution to defend it from domestic enemies if simply following orders is the same thing? If they personally are never to do anything but follow orders, why take an oath to do anything but follow orders - the enlisted oath?
If it is as you say, the officer’s oath can’t possibly mean anything beyond the enlisted oath.
So why is it different? Just a decoration - so an officer can say to the enlisted person, “I agreed to obey in a more flowery way than you did”?
“Why take an oath to the Constitution to defend it from domestic enemies if simply following orders is the same thing?”
Because the military doesn’t operate on personal feelings. If a local commander decides he wants to remove the City Council of Tucson (an admirable goal, BTW), he can’t just call up some troops and march on Tucson.
I am absolutely certain the City Council of Tucson hates America, freedom and everything in the US Constitution, but that doesn’t give a military officer the right to take them out.
Hell, I don’t like the French, but I never declared war on them when I was in the military. In like manner, the military takes on domestic enemies - such as the ones I cited - acting on national authority. And in case you missed it, all three branches of government agree that Obama is the President.