Again, the problem with this argument is that it makes a false assumption. You are assuming that the rate of combat deaths is less than those of people in the jobs you list. This is not necessarily true. There are more deaths in those jobs, but there are also many many more people doing those jobs.
You're splitting hairs. I'm sure we could divert this debate to a numbers game, if that's what you want, but it side steps my point which was already stated. There are other kinds of high risk jobs that serve the country that are non-military, and I don't see why they are any less deserving of patriotism than the military.
The next problem with this argument is that fisherman and truck drivers are not "serving their country", and more than any one privately employed is. Military personnel are directly serving their country.
Without coal miners, your country has no energy for economy.
Without lumber, infrastructure does not get built.
Without pilots testing new planes, aviation falls behind.
Without farmers, there is no food.
Without truck drivers, supplies don't get distributed throughout the country.
I think they serve their country
directly. Just because a soldier is on the public budget, does not mean they are in a special class of employment that deserves as much as money as we can give them. Soldiers have contracts and terms, just like the private sector. They deserve more money than most of the private sector because their lives are directly threatened routinely, but so are the others in the top 10 I posted.
The last problem is that it does not account for the hardships and extra hours that military personal go through. Spend a few months with your bags packed because you could be deploy with 48 hours notice. Makes even taking a vacation hard. Over the last 4 years I spent in service, I spent less than 4 months each year actually at my home base. I spent almost 2 years of it at sea. Further, military personal work more hours than most comparable civilians, and do not get overtime for it. If you broke down military pay to an hourly rate, you would be aghast. 84 + hour weeks, plus duty days every 4 days is the norm. During flight ops at sea, I worked 16 to 18 hours a day, for 30 to 40 days at a stretch with no days off, doing a high stress job where one mistake could cost some one their life.
As I said earlier, I'm not against
fair pay increases to the military from an economics standpoint; but I am completely against unsubstantiated pay raises based upon the notion that soldiers are somehow more deserving because they are in a favored employment strata. i.e. they can't be paid enough for the duty they perform.
Separate question. I agree, Iraq was a mistake. I agree, the constant deployments is expensive. Iraq is thankfully winding down, Afghanistan is unfortunately to my mind necessary. If Pakistan is involved in terror attacks against the US, we may have to do something there. The problem is that we don't have absolute control. Certain situations do require a response in the best interest of our country.
Ideally there should be no war at all, but yes, I am a realist and I acknowledge that Afghanistan is necessary; that said, for all we know, things could be wrapping up there now if the waste that was Iraq hadn't been pandered to. This, to me, constitutes a large waste of money. The pentagon could be in a better position to give raises because the budget would be more balanced. That's what happens when long-term sustainability is sacrificed for the sake of the short term image of certain politicians.
Naturally the pentagon will be asking for more money now because its resources are being stretched. That's what happens when you fight multiple long term wars. The coffers begin to run dry.
I am not a conservative, I will let them answer this question. I will note quickly that I am a liberal, and yet I see the need for military spending, and a strong military. We should not play politics with the military, though I do agree, as I posted earlier, that the military budget does need to be trimmed. It's just not going to be easy.
The U.S. needs a strong military because of its current foreign policy, but the choices of some foolish administrations have led it to budgetary crisis. That's what happens when one has a short term vision.
People
always play politics with the military. It's a branch of the gov. and subject to scrutiny just like any other branch. Its budget does need to be trimmed, but in realistic proportions according to maintaining foreign commitments. Your government can conserve the most by not engaging in unnecessary wars, as we saw with Iraq.
Knock off the personal attacks.