I see your point, but (and this is pure speculation here), let me tell you of something I've learned from history. In nearly every other military in the world, if leaders are disabled or unable to lead, the unit under him becomes paralyzed. They typically sit down and await further orders. That's how military doctrines operate throughout the world....EXCEPT for the US military.

I believe the American doctrine of military defense gives greater autonomy to the lower ranks to assume leadership when none is present. That difference has been one of the reasons the US military has been so successful (mostly).

The best example I can think of was at D-Day. As wave after wave of US and allied troops hit the beaches, many officers were lost, as well as senior NCOs. As the ranks of leaders were depleted, successively lower ranks took up the leadership roles and pressed on the attack. That would never have happened in the German army or the Soviet army.

Would it be a leap to think that the organization chart you show, that behind that chart is a doctrine of pressing on if the Commander In Chief were absent?

Are there any circumstances, based on their oath of allegiance, under which the US military are able to act against the sitting government?

This makes sense… but how does DJT get in the White House if the military doesn’t act?

Can the military take over the elections if it has been shown that the elections [critical infrastructure] are not safe?