> They do get to choose whether to sign up to a volunteer military that's engaged in an existing war. There's been 2 very short "wars" and then 2 very long cou

> They do get to choose whether to sign up to a volunteer military that's engaged in an existing war. There's been 2 very short "wars" and then 2 very long counter-insurgency campaigns. E.g. with Iraq: Even if you just flat-out assume that the U.S. invasion was completely unjustified, a soldier signing up to join could still have a positive role to play in helping the new government, and the Iraqi people, establish the basic trappings of security needed for any modern society to function. After all, the reason that the UN (and all its associated aid agencies) pulled out in 2003 was because of the security failure that led to their special rapporteur being murdered in a bombing. I mean, we've experimentally verified after the U.S. left that the mere military presence alone wasn't what was causing bombing attacks, as Iraq still has to fight through those even today. Would it have been better not to be going to Iraq in the first place? Absolutely, but the soldiers joining in 2004 didn't get to decide on the 2003 invasion, only on whether they can help on America's behalf to help the Iraqis with the damage inflicted.