Soldiers have a mixed reputation. This is not a statement meant to be judgemental, but rather an acknowledgement that the profession of soldier has been maligned, praised and judged based not on the profession itself, but the societal use and view of it.

I personally believe that the profession is not inherently evil. I believe that the profession has been put to evil purposes throughout time and nearly all civilizations. I believe that many lies are told to fool those with noble purpose into joining the service. I believe that many who rise in power do so based not on their adherence to the moral and social contract which governs service, but rather due to personal ambition and the lack of said adherence.

However, to act in a moral manner, many soldiers find themselves up against a wall of tradition and legality which splits hairs to ensure that even the most objectively evil acts can be morally justified. When the conscience and the training of the soldier find themselves in conflict, many will return to strict platitudes and dogma. For my own part I know that the rigid focus upon such platitudes often can make the difference between success and failure in what is perceived as a life threatening situation.

To provide an example,
The concept of Honor. In Army Dogma, DIRECT from the Army website, the concept of honor is defined thus:

Honor is a matter of carrying out, acting, and living the values of respect, duty, loyalty, selfless service, integrity and personal courage in everything you do.

In other words, it is completely a concept defined not by any action, but by legalistic following of every other regulation. It has become practically a joke, and what used to be considered honorable is now covered, vaguely, under the concept of "Integrity". That offers very little guidance as well, instead covering...

Do what’s right, legally and morally. Integrity is a quality you develop by adhering to moral principles. It requires that you do and say nothing that deceives others. As your integrity grows, so does the trust others place in you. The more choices you make based on integrity, the more this highly prized value will affect your relationships with family and friends, and, finally, the fundamental acceptance of yourself.

Did you catch it? It means nothing, but sounds good. Like any politician's speech. Moral principles are of course, fungible. If you could POTENTIALLY save dozens of lives by torture, aren't you morally obligated to commit the torture? There is no actual guidance, and it is easily shifted to the whims of the moment.

It doesn't define what many soldiers with a moral compass actually think honor is. The concept not of just following principles, but rather committing yourself to the duty and responsibility to take actions which benefit all at the expense of yourself. In many ways, moral soldiers feel that they are taking actions for the good of all, and the scoffing and abuse they take from others in regards to those actions are simply part and parcel of doing good. They feel that they have made themselves a target, but in doing so protect others.

I realize it's a romantic and very black and white version of honor, but the shades of grey which are inserted into the mix by the ambitious muddy decisions which are already nearly impossible for the average person to make.

It takes a great deal of training to overcome basic human impulses. To strike a fallen opponent is incredibly difficult for almost all humans. The societal shame of kicking an opponent when he is down is palpable in the moment. Hence why the military trains for that aggression. Over and over again, until the reflex is buried and the only thought given is to end the fight, quickly and efficiently. A surgical response to a problem.

And really that is the proper response for any soldier. To end a problem quickly and brutally, so that people can return to their proper lives and activities. It must NOT be the choice of the soldier to decide when and where he engages the enemy. That volition is ceded to those in authority, with the understanding that they also shall bear the burden and shame for said decisions.

Any good and honest soldier will pray every day that he is never used. A soldier who wishes for war is a fool, and sadly the military seems hell bent on recruiting as many fools as possible. The more fools there are, the more fools without morals get promoted. Say what you will about the hideous state of the draft, the draft did more to end Vietnam than any amount of protests. The switch to the all mercenary army was a great idea, for mercenaries.

Soldiers do consider themselves to at least be moral people. The problem is that the constant hypocrisies present in both command and contractors often cause them to lose hope and focus. As time goes on, cynicism often grows like ivy, obscuring the once proud honorable edifice with a cloak of despair. For those with power, they often continue the cycle, enriching themselves at the expense of others. In the modern Army, I would challenge you to find one professional NCO who isn't eyeballing a defense contractor job and salivating at the thought. For those without power, there's nothing when they get out, except seeing their decisions criticized, their morals called into question, and an occasional "Thank you for your service" given in lieu of a "Nothing Personal."