Great stuff.

And something to keep in mind is that even though POTUS (or Acting POTUS) is the Commander-in-Chief (under the Constitution, the office is one in the same and cannot be split), said CIC can and before has, authorized his subordinates to conduct war. For instance, Lincoln was ill prepared to effectively manage the war effort for federal forces to suppress the insurrection and rebellion of 1860. But he he appointed top generals to prosecute the war, albeit stepping in and overriding their plans when he deemed it necessary. Sometimes that was a good thing, and at other times Lincoln should have stepped back and let his lieutenants do work. He learned on the job and became an exceptional leader by finally surrounding himself and trusting great military commanders a la Grant and Sherman.

But as far as the Constitution and lawful statutory law is concerned, there always has to be a POTUS, or at least an Acting POTUS, and said Chief Executive is the Commander-in-Chief during time of war. It is a power and duty of the officer holder and nobody else. So if there was/is a theoretical Acting POTUS Pence (or Pompeo), then they could be like Jefferson chillin' at Monticello whilst giving orders to his generals to wage war... of course, it could be as simple as "follow the plans that were already laid out prior to my becoming Acting POTUS."

Norman's identification of Oct 5th seems to be the pivotal moment... perfect time to do whatever was done, especially if taken within the context that the "election" itself, was a military op.