I read the biography of Dwight Eisenhower by Stephen Ambrose.  One point he makes clear is that after Sputnik the entire nation was in a tizzy and wanted to hike the military budget to something astronomical, and Eisenhower held the line and kept the military to a reasonable size.  Thus there is precedent for a general being better able to resist the pentagon.

(Contrast to Clinton who was unwilling to ever to anything the generals didn't like.  Heck, Bush I cut the military budget a lot more than Clinton did, and Clinton to his shame wouldn't even sign the landmines treaty.)

Regarding your third point, however, I think anyone but Bush will be fine there.  The military establishment has been conservative (as in not liking risks) has been resistant to these overseas adventuring.  Rumsfeld & co. are viewed as civilians who are ignoring the military officials, not military men who are imposing their view.  (For example, in providing about half the troops that the Pentagon said they'd need to occupy Iraq.)