You don’t have to think the best of them but the US military has a surprisingly wide array of people in it (and yes, tons of white supremacists and authoritarians but it’s not so easy to predict what someone is like purely on the basis of military membership).
Why should I apply a less broad brush than the people saying they're innocent and to be nice to them based on equally insufficient evidence? Why are kneejerk military apologetics acceptable, but not skepticism in the context of an authoritarian takeover and de facto martial law?
To be rational? You’re making claims about individuals, not about institutions.
My only claim is that I don't have any reason to *assume* good intentions from individuals who are working for corrupted institutions. If they're unwilling to be there, fine, but I won't be assuming that is the default position.
That’s a very good point. I don’t assume and we can’t assume by default. This is a terrible situation, and it is wrong they are there. Some are young and I see young people differently. Unfortunately, they are easy to influence by bad actors. Fortunately, they can still change. So I hope for them.