[jackfoxy]

Alex3917,

You are arguing some very abstract terms (albeit, citing statistics along the way). As someone else who has known well many professional military persons in my life (although I never served), I can also attest the blurb in the Atlantic article reflects what I have seen. Yes, this is anecdotal information, however for certain purposes (like judging individual people) the weight of anecdotal information becomes important. It seems at least some others are coming to the table with similar information.

How many professional military (defined as in for at least a full hitch, and preferably longer) do you know? What kind of anecdotes do they provide?

EDIT: Let me change my definition of "professional" to mean officers Captain or higher (Navy full Lieutenant), NCO, or warrant officer.

[Helianthus]

I'm going to perform the minor rudeness of predicting his response; if he knows military personel, I expect they will have been those that support his opinion: the lower-class more readily exploited for their service, those who came into conflict over money matters with the military establishment and felt (whether rightly or wrongly) cheated via some form of bureaucracy, and in general a selection not fully representational of the military as a whole.

I'd give myself bonus points if he included some visceral anecdote.

[jackfoxy]

That's OK. The point I wanted to make is this article is about what people in this job are like and what may be surprising to people who don't know much about it. I think anecdotal information becomes interesting in this case when it illustrates a trend, and it is about "professional" military, not about short timers and those who should never have entered the military.