[colburnmh]

Presidents, like leaders in business or the military, realize that they don't have the current experience, situational knowledge, or training necessary to dictate details on the ground. Therefore, they dictate high-level foreign policy, political, and strategic military goals and delegate the strategic and tactical details to the military leaders who have the appropriate knowledge to carry them out. Occasionally, they get involved in specific tactical decisions, like authorizing politically sensitive actions (e.g., the Bin Laden raid).

You would not expect the CEO of a large multi-national company to manage all of the details of every department within their company. When you combine all 5 of the armed forces together, it's far more complex than any company on earth, and managing the military is not the President's only responsibility.

The President's direction of the military is also bound, to some degree, by the Legislative and Judicial branches of the government. For example, they can't declare war on a country unilaterally. But those restrictions, while important, are not particularly constraintaining at a day-to-day level. The President has wide latitude to direct the military as they see fit. That includings projecting military power as deterrents against hostile foreign powers or engaging in short-term, small-scale offensive operations abroad.

So, no, Presidents aren't going to the front lines and directing troops like kings of old. That went out of fashion around the time of Napoleon. But good business leaders don't micromanage their workers and departmental details, either. They realize, hopefully, that doing so would do more harm than good.