I get every bit of that. There is only one viable option that represents my deeply held belief that HRC must not be CINC. It is that simple and very personal with a son who will be at the very tip of the spear in the next war.
I am sure you have grappled long and hard with that issue. Consider, that while hillary is no friend of the military, it was Obama who had to issue the cross border authority to let relief/rescue assets into Benghazi. It is my understanding that the two gentlemen who gave their lives so others could escape were not active duty SEALs, but were hired for security at the embassy. (Correct me if I am wrong, please).
It is my opinion (and YMMV, but please consider) that Benghazi was a planned snatch-and-grab, the fruits of which would have been a hostage ambassador at an annex removed from the embassy, who would have been exchanged for the Terrorist lieutenants who were later released. By ignoring orders to stand down, relocating to the annex, and mustering and mounting a defense, the impression given was that the deal was not only off, but a set-up. The fighters and the Ambassador were killed in retaliation for that apparent betrayal. The reason no relief was forthcoming is that it would have eliminated any deniability on the part of those traitors in the DOS that this was a fluke, the guys were acting contrary to a stand down, etc., and cemented the idea of betrayal in the minds of the terrorist leadership which there were many other deals on the table with the second they got so much as one crumb of air support, much less troops on the ground. Yep, any way you cut and slice it, that's betrayal, and treason, but there was likely a 'deal' in the background, maybe levels of deal we know nothing about.
Treason? I'm pretty sure whatever they were cooking up was, and for money.
Now, what I believe you are basing your decision on is the belief (hope, anyway) that Mr. Trump will not get our troops (as a force, not a couple of individuals) in harm's way needlessly or incompetently, out of pique or personal affront, using the Armed Forces of the Untied States of America to assuage his wounded ego.. whether or not the affront is worthy of committing our youth (especially yours) and treasure to retaliation or action. versus whether you believe Hillary would commit our Armed forces to needless or needlessly restricted conflict which would be difficult at best to resolve favorably for the Nation, the military, or even the individual soldier.
You're in a tough spot. I'm not trying to persuade you, just provide perspective. We know the contempt which Hillary has for our service personnel. We've seen Trump stand behind them, ducking a debate. His motivation may be questioned there, but I don't think he would do anything which might have him appear to be a "loser", or which he could not blame away. The latter concerns me almost as much as the former, because I don't see him taking the responsibility for ever getting anything wrong. I don't think Hillary would necessarily start WWIII, although she might arrange the board. Trump, I am not so sure.
Whatever the outcome, I pray your son stays safe, especially from rash and corrupt decisions made on high.