If the minutiae of the legalities are such that they contradict the bigger picture that is taught throughout the system, so that the JAG’s world and understanding is diametrically opposed to the world of the people leading and teaching the military structure, that’s a very, very serious “disconnect”.
It’s sort of like saying that the earth is spherical, except to scientists who do the calculations. If the calculations come up with the earth being flat even while the scientific community as a whole (as well as photographic evidence) says it’s spherical, then we have a problem because there are inconsistencies between the bigger picture and the minutiae.
If the military leaders and teachers (and the 4 legal references I’ve given) say the world is spherical (lawfulness of combat orders depends on authorization from the President), but the JAG’s say that according to the minutiae the world is flat (no presidential authorization needed for combat orders to be lawful), then there is a problem with how the minutiae (codes) are put together because they haven’t been encoded to say what everybody thought they were saying.
To the layperson, the earth is indeed spherical. But… How exact is that? It is correct that the earth is generally spherical. But that is not an exact statement.
The geometric definition of a sphere is basically ‘Every point on the surface is the same distance from the center.” This is clearly not true about the earth as we have large deviations in the distance from the center to points on the surface. So the mathematical definition doesn’t work on this level.
If someone claimed that the earth was a sphere, and from the mathematical definition of a sphere proceeded to argue that therefore there were no elevation changes. They would be wrong. But it wouldn’t follow from that the earth was flat. Photographs of the earth from space showing a rotating circular profile could then be employed, but they still don’t’ give you the information you need.
The earth isn’t an exact sphere. Those who study the matter can truthfully say (and demonstrate) that the earth is not “spherical’ in the true meaning of the term. But again saying that the earth is not spherical does not mean that the earth is flat.
The earth is wider at the equator due to rotational and gravitational effects. The correct term is ‘oblate ellipsoid’. A measurement of the earth around the equator measures some 40 miles more than a measurement taken along any given longitude. And even those measurements are usually running averages of elevations above sea level. ‘Sea level’ really isn’t even the same from one point to another even before tidal forces from the moon are taken into consideration.
For a basic understanding of the shape of the earth, ‘sphere’ is fine. But if you want to actually do something with that information (orbits, navigation, etc.) you have to take into account that the earth isn’t truly spherical.
Specialists specialize for a reason. There is a great deal to know about and no one person can grasp it all. That’s one reason open markets work so well, but I digress…
Great leaders are usually great generalists who know how to use specialists and when to seek their input.
Maybe it’s because of my line of work that this is important to me. I’ve seen it happen far too often where the general picture of how something ought to behave breaks down because of some smaller characteristics that aren’t apparent in the knowledge of the larger picture but are known to someone who specializes in some smaller aspect of a system involved. Say an engineer who works with power distribution will have a wide understanding of electrical theory, but will not be terribly successful in high frequency electronics without the addition of a good deal of schooling and practical experience. By the same token, I wouldn’t give terribly great weight to a decorated admiral’s pronouncements on the use of infantry, or a JAG’s pontifications on the shape of the earth.
Experts should be listened to when they speak on their expertise. Outside their expertise they may not know any more than the average schmo.