People choose a job for many reasons. Some things in jobs we like, others we don't. Some jobs have public popularity, others don't. Some jobs are dangerous, others are not.
Being a member of the Armed forces is clearly a dangerous role, but it is one freely chosen. here are many other dangerous jobs.
So why is it that the death of people in the armed forces , fighting in a war with tenuous benefit, bring weeping people out on to the streets? Those crying didn't know them.
I wonder how and why they can identify with them. To me, those who join the services have made what is essentially an immoral judgment. I don't admire them, neither do i feel any connection to them. When they die - well, what do they expect? They have signed up to become part of a war machine which kills people. they should then expect to be killed. Why, then, the risible emotionalism for something which is a central part of the job?
I really can;t understand the mentality of those who say on the one hand, oppose the war and cut defence spending, and then launch into Sun-type rhetoric about 'supporting our boys' and 'not being opposed to the troops'. That is illogical nonsense. If you oppose the war and the military, then one must oppose their activities.
As such I view the deaths as sad for the individuals, but an occupational hazard - nothing more. And, no, they did not 'do it for me'. they made a free choice to take a job in the military. They live, and die, with the consequences.