Those academies you listed are for officers. The officer corps is a tiny portion of the armed services of the United States, so you touting around these academies as some sort of indication that service members are intelligent on the whole is disingenuous or ignorant. If the latter, hopefully this revelation will clarify your perspective.
Secondly, the military exists for a very specific purpose, despite what all its been used for: the destruction of the enemy. The people that do the most intense fighting are also the ones for which the threshold for intelligence is the lowest. ASVAB scores for combat arms in the Army, excluding Special Forces, are all less than 100, and infantry, which composes the bulk of the US fighting force, is at 31. In other words, the primary function of the Army can be, and oftentimes is, carried out by the lowest intelligence recruits.
I'd also like to ask what sacrifice of theirs we're supposed to respect. Service members aren't automatically heroes. I served with a number of people who were human garbage that should never have been there, let alone in positions of authority over others. I've also served alongside genuine sociopaths. These are not isolated cases; they're the norm. Moreover, the military answers to the executive branch, which is a political agency. It deploys the military in furtherance of political goals, with the approval of other politicians in Congress. Are we supposed to happily wave the flag and praise our soldiers for carrying out the political will of the ruling elite?
This brings me to my next point: troops do not provide a valuable service. The service they provide could add value if it was provided for by private people investing in private firms, thereby driving competition to provide better and cheaper services, but that's not the case. They are paid for and funded by property expropriated from others. They are functionally no different than people who live on welfare for the same period as the troops serve. They are paid by taxes, which are taken at the point of a gun from people. This is immoral, and it should never be championed. Ever. If your argument is that militaries are necessary because we don't live in an enlightened world, you're doing a poor job of encouraging people to move toward that goal by advocating in favor of the trigger-pullers.
The same way I don't laud a serial killer for elaborate crime scene positioning and being neat and tidy with his tools, I'm not going to laud me or anyone else for signing their name on the dotted line and serving the interests of politicians. At best, they deserve our pity, but they're not heroes.
Have you done any of these things? Have you gone INTO harms way for a greater cause, and directly put your life in danger to save others? They do. Part of the job. They write a blank check for America to be cached, up to the sacrifice of their lives. For you. For me. For our children.
Troops provide incredible service to their nation, first and foremost to protect it from destruction and its people from harm. Just read history. Pick any period. Go ahead. Armies are a necessary function to protect the citizens of their nation.
Your view of soldiers is very limited. Seeing as they are likely woven into your everyday world. About 1% serve or have served. They are your doctors, dentists, firefighters, salesmen, business owners. You call them sociopaths. Yet it is untrue. Show me any data that proves soldiers are sociopaths and serial killers. It is your fear and ignorance talking. Show me data and defend your claim.
It's not my fear and ignorance. It's my experience in the 82nd Airborne. I served there, for four years. I never said they were all sociopaths, so you can stow that business right now. My view of soldiers is based entirely on my time in service and who I met there.
Your infographic shows that lower enlisted are more likely to have a high school diploma than the general population. That would be meaningful in some way if a high school education was indicative of being intelligent. It's not. One gets a high school diploma if one does what one is told. Government schools are little more than glorified indoctrination centers, so your conclusion that having one makes someone more intelligent doesn't follow. Let's continue:
So the Defense Department spends more than $100 billion taken from people at gunpoint to recruit people that they will then pay with money taken from people at gunpoint. Whether or not this increases the quality of recruiting is irrelevant; this is an immoral end and should never be lauded.
So then your infographic serves no purpose. Either degrees matter, and they're indicative of intelligence, or they don't. Can't have it both ways, chief.
The ASVAB tests general comprehension and reasoning in a number of fields. It is, at its core, no different than any intelligence aptitude test, albeit less rigorous and purpose-driven. That being said, 31 is exactly what it looks like: a 31% score. It's abysmally low, and yet, no more is required of people who want to comprise the bulk of the military's primary fighting force.
Okay, and they deserve our sympathy for forsaking their families for a lie. Every service member who serves "to protect America and freedom" has been tricked by their government. The government does not protect freedom; indeed, it can't exist without infringing on the freedom of anyone. Ultimately, they all signed their names on a dotted line, just like I did, to serve the interest of the ruling political elite. They signed a contract that says not to question the order of their superiors. They agreed to take part in the single most violent enterprise in human history: war.
Your argument that nations have always existed (which is patently untrue, since the nation-state is a creation of the Peace of Westphalia) and that armies have always been necessary is a logical fallacy. It's an appeal to antiquity. Rather than lauding people for signing up to be cannon fodder or enable politicians to pursue whatever immoral ends they want, why not encourage people to find another way? Why not denounce the war machine and point out exactly what it is?
@anarcho-andrei Let me address your points. But first, thank you for your service.
Over $100 billion is taken from people at the point of a gun for recruiting efforts to find and hire people who will then be paid by money taken from people at the point of a gun. You're welcome to demonstrate how taxation is not backed by the threat of or actual use of violent force.
My mistake for misquoting you about nations always existing. That was my bad for misreading your statement, and I'll walk that one back. However, the entire tone of your statement is that in order to ensure the security of people, we need armies. Voluntary exchange and consensual interactions is far more preferable except to people who want to use force to harm others, so this is not the only solution, nor is it the preferred solution. There is no reason the world must operate in this fashion, and honoring people who engage in or support the most murderous enterprise in human history does nothing to advance us past that point. Why continue to honor people that carry out an endeavor that multiples human suffering, rather than pressing for a better solution?
The ASVAB works on a ranking basis, with different scores necessary for different professions. Those with greater general aptitudes (higher scores) qualify for more jobs. Those with lesser general aptitudes (lower scores) qualify for less jobs. Based on this understanding, the job with the lowest cut-off score is the one that qualifies the greatest number of people, meaning it requires the least skilled labor. In the same way that qualifying to flip burgers doesn't make you smart, qualifying for infantryman doesn't make you smart either. I'm even willing to concede your point that the majority of people in the Army aren't knuckledraggers (since I'm my own counterpoint in this case, as were a number of people in my unit), however having such a low threshold for people who are in the most morally responsible position breeds inequity. You know what commands really like? Privates that do what they're told, when they're told to do it, and how they're told to do it. Trust me; I learned from experience that no one in charge likes a private that actually takes initiative.
I'm also not going to honor the "sacrifices" that people impose on themselves. I don't expect, nor do I want, anyone to honor me because I imposed hardships on myself. It doesn't take courage or dedication to keep serving even when one realizes how awful the Army really is; it takes the threat of a dishonorable discharge that will make you unemployable to a large number of people. That encourages other people to do stupid things, like sacrifice time with their family, miss their children growing up, become a stress-addled mess, destroy their relationships, become heavy drinkers and smokers, and a host of other horrible end effects that I've witness first hand or been guilty of myself. If anything, I should be a cautionary tale, as should everyone else who serves.
That's nothing to say for the fact that serving in the military means serving the political ends of the people in charge. Orders that violate the UCMJ are more than likely immoral, but orders that do not violate the UCMJ are also possibly still immoral. I'd argue that serving as the enforcement arm of US foreign policy is immoral in and of itself, and I fully accept my responsibility for being part of that prior to realizing what a racket war is. Indoctrination is a hell of thing, I guess.
@anarcho-andrei
Have you looked at the test recently? I am guessing (yes a guess) you have not.
It is designed where the Average score should be 50 and it tests on the following:
Granted it is no LSAT but it probably is not the same test you took either.
For example the math portion covers algebra, geometry, and quadratic equations.
Perhaps you should go take a practice test... https://asvabbootcamp.com/products/asvab-practice-tests-pack
That's the test I took. chief. It's a general intelligence aptitude test. Maybe you should try taking one and see how you fare.
Speaking of which, when did you serve?
@anarcho-andrei I did take one, many years ago, in high school. The test was far more simple. I am sure it did not have differential equations! But those were much different times. The military has changed from long ago. So have the soldiers.
They are much more sophisticated, intelligent, tech and business savvy nowadays. The ones I interact with can talk foreign politics, philosophy, history, psychology, technology, business, and still hit the center ring at a couple hundred yards. These aren't the grunts from a long time ago. DoD learned that an intelligent soldier was much more effective at achieving in-theater goals. They foster creativity, asymmetrical thinking, game theory, and adaptation. That was the major difference between the centralized control structures of WARSAW, Iraq, etc. and the decentralized operational freedom fostered in most western-nations military.