miko: It may seem to a layperson that soldiers' compensation for risk is inadequate - especially in view of other compensations. So what? For the three real patriots we have in our army the good deed and a chance to be given opportunity to murder people is it's own reward.”- Miko2dHolden McGroin: I challenge you to stand up and say this to an old man who waded ashore on Tarawa, you’d be lucky to still have your teeth. There are many who value their service in Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm who may feel the same way about your equating service to one's country and defending freedom with murder. Well, if you want to knock someone's teeth off under false pretext of patriotism, you may still bother to find a more plausible reason that at least has something to do with what I said.
If a patriot that volunteered and waded ashore on Tarawa is still serving in our professional army, he is included among the three patriots I've mentioned.
You are free to think that the US army is full of idealistic educated people striving to protect the freedoms of the population which does not deserve it or appreciate it, and that best soldiers are choireboys rather than anti-social types looking forward to killing someone that you would not want to live on the same block with.
You can paint yourself all kinds of rosy pictures about people and countries and what they say about themselves and their motives after the fact in order to get as much credit from what they had no choice but to do or justify evil things that they did willingly.
I was in combat. Fooling myself about motivations and characters of my comrades would have gotten me killed - likely in very unpleasant ways. I credit my native intelligence and strength of character with my ability to face ugly reality, but my military service was like having a Ph.D. in that subject.
wulfie: I don't think that 'serving to your detriment for the common good' needs to equal the distinct possibility of getting killed. I disagree on principle. The Founders perceived a very limited government dedicated to basically one issue - defence. Instead of making it huge and all-encompassing, a system of multiple-governments or at least franchise types would be more fair based on responcibility balancing privilege.
You pay taxes - you have a say on economic policy.
You breeze - you have a vote on ecology.
You make decisions that can cause war - you earn it by a term in military forces where you do not necessarily decide where you serve.
What I meant was that there are certain people who would be of no use to the military who would be of great use to the Nation in other non-military fields. I am not sure about health problems. While there are statistically too few of those to matter, I would not mind giving them full rights. The capabilities are not essential. The principle is - you put yourself under orders which could mean your death. Only then you deserve a right to formulate such orders.
If mandatory service catches a guy who has an IQ of 200 and is a shoe-in for crypto work, for Heaven's sake keep him away from boot camp. Such guy would be a national treasure and should be hired at any cost even if he is a multiple child-molester and a cannibal. But if he wants to vote on whether to send some boys with rifles into a hot spot, he must serve a term where he could have been sent to fight himself.
Oh, yes - grab his sperm while you are at it.
The lack of reading material would kill him. 
I see you know the situation. In my regiment I was mentioned before the full assembly with reading more books from the regiment library in two months than was read in the whole history of that library. Good thing nobody had inclination to figure out exactly when I had time to read so much with average two hours of sleep a day. Suffice it to say that if someone cared to sneak in and drive out a battle tank, he should have chosen my shift on centry duty...
Incidentally, one of the books was a translation of a memoirs by a US spec-ops guy who prowled the vietnamese jungles with a small vietnamese team. That was pretty much all the theoretical spec-ops training that I had. In a few months I owed my life to that book.
If I ever have kids, I'll strongly suggest they do a couple of years in the armed forces. I have the same concern. Which one you are thinking about that would not be completely sissyfied by that time? IDF? French Foreign Legion?
For lay people who view military as a service branch of state and soldiers same as any other hired help, like mailmen and subscribe to false Clausewits' view that military is a continuation of politics - it is wrong.
The core of professional military service worth mentioning consists of warriors rather than soldiers - not an occupation but a culture. Distinct culture that has not much in common with civil one and little chance to be understood by a civilian. Even most of the people who serve a few years do not become a part of that culture - it requires certain character traits - but at least they realise it exists.
miko
