That we do and is all true, but we do get results.....lots and lots of dead enemy in our wake.
I'm not impressed by any amoral person who is an effective soldier - who takes pride only in killing well (backed by the wealthiest support in the world gaining advantage).
That's like praising 'remarkable efficiency of the holocaust, impressive use of technology' rather than condemning the moral wrongs.
Watching a soldier proud only of 'killing lots' is like watching a gang member brag about doing crime well. Maybe he did, but the point is his lack of morality.
I'm not comparing the military's actions or motives to these examples, but rather they're examples of how such amoral people can be part of evil.
The military does have plenty of immoral blood on its hands. No immoral violence happens without people who commit it.
We need more people who have developed morality - who get to the place John Kerry did when he opposed the Vietnam war, organizing other soldiers to do so.
That's not you. You speak like the 'thug' type.
A good role model for you would be the Marine general who was the most highly decorated US military man at the time, AFTER his service, Gen. Smedley Butler.
He was approached by a right-wing conspiracy to overthrow President Roosevelt for the interests of right-wingers, a group of the wealthy.
I suspect you would have gone along with them, seeing your views. Butler did the honorable thing and exposed the group, ending their plans.
Butler 'left a lot of enemy killed' too while serving, far more than you, and he came to have a moral sense of how much of it had been wrong, which you appear unable to.
A weak man is one who lets the government take his moral responsibility for killing, and lets them make him a murderer, if they do badly choosing who to kill.
There is killing needed for real defense; and there is the sort of corrupt killing of people who are only fighting oppression, against US corporate interests who are doing wrong.
I'll assume you have seen Butler's summary of the missions he came to realize he had serve on.
Luckily, that sort of wrongful violence happens far less in the modern era - but still too much, more often through our US-trained proxies (from the former school of Americas training the brutal forces for Latin America), from our military and economic aid (remember whose gas canisters the Egyptian protesters faced? Last night I saw a clip of John McCain and other Senators visiting Qadafi in 2009, pledging their commitment to secure him in power, supplying non-lethal weapons for his security forces).
When Indonesia wrongly invaded their neighbor East Timoor, killing 250,000 purely for gain, they did it with US-supplied weapons, weapons the Democratic congress had passed a law saying could only be used to defend, not attack - with (Republican) President Ford's secret and illegal approval to violate that law.
Looking at the forces going and slaughtering innocent East Timorans, you don't look like a Muhammed Ali, who had the morality to refuse to kill for bad reasons, but you look like you would fit in with that or any such force of thugs who kill only because they let someone take their moral responsibility.
I think it's likely you don't get any of this - that 'violence for your country' is some sort of glowing license for killing anyone, whether it's to 'defend' or to wipe out the people who are fighting a dictator we back who is killing their families to keep his corrupt political power.
Being an effective killer is useful when moral; without the moral limitations, you can just as easily become a force for evil, indeed an amoral murderer even when fighting a just war, who just happened to get lucky that his government was fighting a good war, not that you care.
I'm not impressed you, with the training and equipment and support of the best-funded military ever, can kill well. I'd be more impressed if I saw some morality.