We should be more judicious about using military forces as part of foreign policy, and provide better support to the combat troops who are deployed into impossible situations. But the majority of personnel are in low risk support jobs that aren't much different from typical civilian jobs. Lose the hyperbole.
In some countries, working for a criminal organization, will land you in jail.
Good luck bombing anything without mechanics or gasoline, and medical staff helps lower the perceived stakes of war (however slightly).
I rendered humanitarian assistance that saved lives in the wake of the Sumatra earthquakes. My friends have done the same after the Japanese Tsunami.
We don't have to take the (rather overwhelming) bad with the slivers of good.
Either way, you did something good. Unlike many of your comrades. You got the lucky ticket that was the thing you were ordered to do (or offered to volunteer).
What do you mean by that?
Neither of those things is necessarily morally questionable.
If you don't understand how it's more morally questionable than helping victims of natural disasters you are a way worse person than op who naturally chose to say "I saved people from natural disaster", not "I went to hot countries to kill some brown folk and destroy some of their stuff because my commander said they were bad".
It's pretty hard to execute this job with dubious morality.
It's more about if you are a teenager deciding to join military because you believe the things a psyops egirl on TikTok told you, it's very likely that a series of disappointments is awaiting for you there on top of the opportunity cost of your wrong choice.
This give them a couple years of (mostly) internet detox before getting sent back into it.
But sure, if they don’t lose a limb, die or become traumatized and kill themselves it’s not a bad life course.
- being sent to war should probably not be the result of being young and gullible
- if we need to send anyone to war, should we send the dumbest people we can find?