Even though the author was a member of the military - he fundamentally misunderstands the nature of our military. It is not a socialist enterprise because the United States military has to compete against other countries' military organizations. And if America's soldiers perform poorly, then they stand a good chance of dying. As such, our military is more aptly compared to a company competing against other companies with the major difference being that if you perform badly, you die rather than going bankrupt.
If the author can name any socialist nation where a principle tenet is for socialist institutions to compete against other socialist institutions, then I will stand corrected. But he can't, because that organizing principle simply isn't found in socialist nations. Rather, it is found in capitalist nations, not to mention successful military organizations.
Indeed, socialism, as a political philosophy, abhors the type of competition that all successful militaries have engaged in since their respective foundings.
For some, the military life is a compromise between living a life of a modern day warrior, and trying to share some normality with other humans, a wife and kids, during those periods when they can share the same home.
Being called on to go across the globe within hours and for long periods, with no chance to handle any personal affairs, or make arrangements, or on rare occasions, even call the wife, means that the military has developed a small support system for those warriors over the years, or else it just couldn’t function.
A soldier or sailor has to know that his wife and kids will not be abandoned and alone in Europe, or Norfolk, or Guam, if he has to leave with only hours to prepare his gear, and not knowing when, or if he will ever see them again, he needs to know that the family is in something of a nest, it is part of the contract one signs when giving the government a blank check with your life.