It's pretty simple: They serve their country.

That claim of "serving" would suggest the opposite, that they would not take ownership.

Thinking in particular about the US, the military isn't serving the country, the country is serving the military.

I'd like to explain that sentence please.

Not only does the US military serve the country, it also serves Canada. Our chronically underfunded and demoralized armed forces would struggle if Canada were to be attacked by a strong team of Cub Scouts. Being scared of upsetting our neighbour to the south is the only reason we have not been attacked.

Wow. I actually quite liked that one, it appealed to me on several different levels.

What I mean is that the US military has become an intrinsic representation of the US. Americans are expected to support and pay for an extraordinarily powerful military, way beyond the requirements for self-defence. The US military is primarily a vast geopolitical operation, that requires the US population to pay for it, support it, honour it, and many to serve in it.

I'd suggest that most militaries in the world have funding that is far superior than that required purely for self defence, which are also funded by their taxpayers.

I accept that the US seems to require its population to honour its military to an extent not seen in most other countries but I'd also argue that that is their choice too.

I don't believe that that would justify a suggestion that the country is serving the military.

Not sure any of us are qualified to judge how much US needs to defend itself. According to Google it spends 3 times as much as China but of course the latter has much lower costs. And China’s military expenditure is growing at a very fast pace while US military expenditure is falling.

And the fact that US is helping to defend countries facing very real threats like Taiwan, South Korea, Baltic states and Poland… Surely nobody would be holding it against US military?

Interesting that Russian claims in the Arctic overlap with Canadian and Danish claims but don’t go anywhere near Alaska. Perhaps its useful to actually have an army? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north...helf-1.5983289.

When was Eisenhower's famous farewell speech, 1961? warning about the danger of the power of the military in the USA over the USA..

January 17, 1961

The US military provides access to trades training and post-secondary education and a chance of a career for a lot of people who otherwise might have trouble accessing it. That, and the use of regular and National Guard units in aid to the civil power during natural disasters is an easier benefit to quantify than national defense, but the deterrent effect of of US power and alliances worldwide is invaluable. Quelling civil unrest with force or show of force is often divisive, but everyone likes to see them rescuing people. The trickle-down economic benefits of the MIC run through the whole manufacturing sector, so I wonder if without the armed forces contracts how many big companies would go under?

Some good examples of how America serves the military. A system of getting a disproportionate workforce working for the military, enabled by the military providing services funded from tax base, what is usually provided by government directly in similar nations, is provided by the military in the USA. A symbiotic relationship, a significant proportion of the citizenry relies on the military, that citizenry works for and pays for the military. The military gets credit for services, and the government gets criticized for over taxation and not providing services..

"and everybody has a share"

Meanwhile, in Mexico, every Monday morning (in ALL schools) there is a 'Flag Assembly'."The children are dressed correctly and stand at attention in ranks in the yard outside. To a martial drum, the Mexican tricolour enters and is paraded by three other children who march past their serried compadres - and they march, mark you, they do not walk, shuffle, stroll or shamble. As 'El Himno Nacional' plays, the children salute the flag and sing with a genuine sense of patriotic fervor. It is a dignified display and is part of the teaching of national pride in this country and history.

Sadly, such a display would be called 'overt nationalism' and roundly disparaged, by neo-Orwellian sniggering intellectuals, as 'redneck conservatism' or 'dangerous racism' or 'fascistic nonsense' (or some other type of neo-Gramscian 'politically correct' dogma) in those countries, like England, that have lost their way and lost their pride in their heritage and its symbols."