I am hesitant to upvote this post. As a veteran, I concur with much of what you said. A majority of us signed up for service when we were too young and dumb to make an informed opinion. As a military brat, it was not a difficult choice to enlist when I came of age; it was almost an expected rite of passage. At the time I firmly believed that if you were going to appreciate and enjoy the "freedoms" America" had to offer, then you should be willing to sacrifice at least 4 years of your life defending those "freedoms." After witnessing what we are capable of from a military standpoint, simply at the direction of the elected elite, my opinions changed. I was one of those who did not last long. As a matter of fact I barely made it to the 4 year mark, and although I received an Honorable Discharge, it came with a K-2 identifier, which in short meant I couldn't rejoin any of the other branches of service or reserves.
My biggest issue with this post is the claim that scholars improve the quality of life for people. Science is fraught with inaccuracies. Most theories are supported by the ever so magical word "if." Then there's the simple fact that scholars who make pills, which you mention, are called pharmacologists...they make petrochemical pollutants that are advertised as "treatments," not cures, many of which come with a laundry list of side effects that are far more hazardous and life threatening than the original illness.