I'm confused by what I'm seeing as a difference in your thread-root comment and your attitude in this branch. In the thread root you opened with the idea that control of the military might work differently in the future. Here you seem to be asking for a justification for the idea that control of the military might play out differently in the future.

The topic was "Civilian control [of, presumably, the military]". The root comment seemed comfortable with the idea that individuals can go rogue if they have access to a large number of machines that unquestioningly obey them. I'm not sure why you think society being organised democratically makes that suddenly a non-issue again, and if you believe that then why did you suggest this topic in the first place?

Military generals are just people and power reliably corrupts. There is a bit of a screen to try and pick emotionally stable and patriotic ones - and I assume that generally works - but the big control is that fact that all the people reporting to them are voters. If the people reporting to them are from a smaller pool of voters and vastly more productive with machine aid, there is room to speculate that control will be less effective or maybe even fail.