As commander in chief, the president has the power to

The president of the United States is the head of State and Government of the United States. It is the highest political office in the country by influence and recognition. The president leads the executive branch of the federal government. Among other powers and responsibilities, Article II of the Constitution of the United States entrusts to the president the "faithful execution" of the federal law, makes the president the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, authorizes him to appoint executive and judicial officers with the advice and consent of the Senate places it at the forefront of the foreign policy of the United States, and allows the president to grant pardons or moratoria.

In Article II, perhaps the most important of all the presidential powers is given, it is his position at the head of the Armed Forces of the United States as his commander-in-chief. While the power to declare war corresponds constitutionally to Congress, the president commands and directs his armies and is responsible for planning military strategy. The fathers of the Constitution were cautious in limiting the presidential powers regarding the military

Along with the armed forces, the president is also at the forefront of foreign policy. Through the Department of State and the Department of Defense, the president is responsible for the protection of Americans overseas and of foreign citizens in the United States. The president decides whether to recognize new nations and new governments and negotiates treaties with other nations, which become effective in the United States when approved by two thirds of the Senate. The president can also negotiate "executive agreements" with foreign powers that are not subject to Senate confirmation.

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )