So is your local police force, in that it's an organisation with the capacity and authority to commit violent acts on behalf of the state. But neither the military nor the police have violence as their sole objective; it's merely a tool to be used in the attainment of certain goals and policies such as national defence or community safety.
But we're arguing semantics here. I wrote my response because the way in which joubert dismissed the possibility of the author's comment being sarcasm strongly implied that he regarded the military as an inherently violent organisation to which only violence-loving terrorist-killing wannabes would aspire. I resent that.
"So is your local police force, in that it's an organisation with the capacity and authority to commit violent acts on behalf of the state."
We agree so far. I don't think it's just semantics, but my "politics" probably differ radically from most of the crew here (and I don't expect to change anyone's mind), so I'll leave it at that.
I get that his list of reasons was largely sarcastic. But that suggests he's (at least somewhat) cynical about the military. Given that, I don't understand why he'd join up. Especially when he implies that he had/has specific knowledge that he'd likely be sent to Iraq and told to kill people. I just don't find it funny. Maybe I missed the point.
I found the article to be pretty good aside from that comment, which was a little too on the nose to be funny for me...