A Military Defense argument to bolster another Presidential bid, may not be open to Trump again!

Presidents of the US sometimes may resort to the cogency of a military argument to bolster their bid for re-election for another term:  That is to say, if there's some US commitment to a military encounter, a President could refer to his role in continuing supporting a battle engagement as reason for his/her remaining in office for another four years.

True, such an argument is another WHACK-O Theory!

Specifically, President Trump could not use this line of reasoning to bolster his conceivable campaign for four more years, because he has just lost today, this very day when M. Cohen's additional deal with the Russian investigation by the FBI was signed, that he has no personal, vested interest in any possible Ukrainian-Russian conflict and its outcome.  Cohen appears to claim that Trump has shown himself involved in Russian political-financial activities over the years including those of being President of the United States.

Already, President Trump must recognize that he had not gained the majority electorate support for his Presidency nor has the Republican Party clearly demonstrated its commitment to another four years of his regency.  And, what could have been available to him was an appeal to keep him in office for the sake of the interests of the United States in some time of battle and armed conflict, when US troops are involved.

But alas, if there were some war or military conflict that the US might take sides in or act as mediator, the political question would arise, is the military acting at the behest of entrepreneur Trump or as an order from Trump, the President of the country and head of its military? 

Now here this!!! I'm in recovery from the surgery.

I've just ended a four week stay at a rehab facility close to George Washington Med Center on 23rd Street, I think.

Seemed the surgery went very well; and I'm recuperating now at home.