Seems like the military is acting in the citizens best interest.
First: you make a false dichotomy: one can be behind troops without a hagiographic approach to discussing the military (or any subject). In fact the best way to support troopers is to keep them out of harm's way. Consider WWII in Europe: Eisenhower set the invasion a year later than the other allies wanted in order to manage the supply chain better (supporting the troops) and to make sure the real bleeding of the enemy was done by non-US troops. In terms of materiel and logistics, the US won the war in Europe; in terms of fighting, the Russians unquestioningly did. Excellent call by the US if you ask me.
Second: there are other means of being a superpower than military might (which is only one tool in the toolbox....and as history has shown, usually not the right one). If you don't criticize the military, how can you reasonably discuss tradeoffs between military intervention / negotiation / economic hegemony / ignoring the issue?
And I know it's just an HN comment, but the phrase "the military is acting in the citizens best interest" is worrisome on its face: the military should be under civilian control and thus acting in the interests the citizens have specified. The military is the organization that should act in its own interests the least since it has the weapons.
If you are serious, it's important to note that at the time of its founding, US law forbade the creation of a national military, precisely because of the fear of too much centralized control of lethal force.
In the centuries since, we've seen that this fear was very well founded. The founders did not want to prevent the US from having a strong military, but they wanted the rallying and dispatch of it to require significantly more consensus than even a super-majority vote from congress.
Imagine if the Iraq war had required even a super-majority vote... millions of lives would not have been lost. Imagine if the Vietnam war had required a super-majority vote how many more people would be alive today.
Knee-jerk use of power is arguably as American as a six shooter drawn quickly from the holster at the slightest provocation. Many associate this sort of hot-tempered use of force with power and machismo.
But is it really an indication of strength to rob the people of trillions of dollars for a folly in Iraq without true democratic approval? I'd argue that it's a sign of weakness and of failed checks and balances.
My idea of being behind troops is to not send them into a combat zone for the private interests of politicians, and participating in our democracy by educating oneself and voting. Or perhaps holding the elected officials to account for Veterans Affairs issues. Flying a flag and singing a song and giving someone a military discount have nothing to do with patriotism.
Anyway, how did you equate "military spending on propaganda" to mean that "the nation is behind the troops"? Obviously the nation is not behind them if they have to brainwash people into behaving a certain way.
That being said, I don't know how to respond. I disagree wholeheartedly. I don't think that the military acts with the best interest of most citizens.