Anthony, it is indeed worth noting that soldiers' pay comes from taxes. But what I thought you were going to say, and should be said and appreciated by especially the left, is that unlike all other high-risk jobs, the soldier is literally enslaved once he "volunteers".
For instance, when I worked for KBR, assessing and repairing damage to chemical plants in Iraq in 2003, it was emphasized again and again that if I felt myself to be in an unsafe situation, I could leave that particular situation immediately. Also, I could quit my assignment in Iraq at any time. The Gurkhas that provided some of our security had the same deal.
The National Guardsmen, who performed the exact same services as the Gurkhas, were compelled to serve their "term of service" even if they would have preferred to quit. I met several Guardsmen who wanted to quit, but knew it to result in jail time, dishonorable discharge, etc.
In private industry, we use things like pay uplift, perquisites, retainers, completion bonuses, performance bonds, and liquidated damages to provide the voluntary incentive structures for people to perform dangerous jobs that they might want to quit -- but we don't force them to perform dangerous jobs.
The least the government could do is to liberalize its employment policies to prevent the actual enslavement of men and women who volunteer to be soldiers.
By the way, not to disrespect my fellow countrymen, but the Gurkhas were incredibly more effective at their security jobs than the National Guardsmen. Mostly, I think this was due to two factors: first, the Gurkhas chose to be there voluntarily and were therefore psychologically committed to the task; second, the National Guardsmen were mainly college kids, who were not as seasoned and mature as the Gurkhas.
