[Carpetsmoker]

I don't think the author is against the military, but rather against violence. Quoting from the article:

"There are even signs that the professional military is reaching a clearer understanding than civilian policy-makers of the weaknesses of violence, and the strengths of non-violent approaches to conflict resolution. We may be moving toward the day when trained, disciplined soldiers will be able to move into a situation of conflict and restore civility and peace without loss of life.

That's a day worth working for.

[..]

However, violent actions taken in the name of defense against terrorism are very likely to increase the likelihood and magnitude of future terrorist attacks. We need a combination of short-term vigilance and protection, and long-term efforts to reduce the problems that breed terrorism, both in non-violent ways."

Furthermore, I don't think the author argues for "all Americans to not take military funding":

"No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work."

Which is fair enough.

I think the article is considerably more nuanced than your response makes it seem.