In most Western countries the most senior person in command is a civilian, not a general or admiral (and there are civilians in various other positions, too).
So when currently in country A something is done by the military and in country B by civilians, only country A has it right?
The US army corps of engineers being in charge of levees isn't the only way, for example. A lot of generals don't fight wars. And those who do, are under civilian supervision.
Civilians control but don't manage the military. They control it, in the sense of setting the goals, but they don't generally manage things after that.
I think that goes to the heart of it: I am not sure generals would necessarily be better at achieving the political objectives of what the military is for.
In the same way, I couldn't say if Boing would need something more closer to a priest or a technocrat.
Should experts always be in control everywhere or are there limits?