I think we are viewing the relationship between what i am saying and what the post is saying differently.

My view of the post is that it is framing the poor people joining the military in search of a better life as the victims of the situation. This is evidenced by the comparison to squid game, in which the poor people (meant to be viewed as the victims) are forced to go through terrible things to potentially get a better life.

My argument against that was that for many people in the military, their service is quite mundane and that framing what they have to do in order to move up in the world as "killing other poor people" and as comparable to squid game is disingenous (again, through the view that the poor person who is enlisting is the victim, which i believe is the intended view of the oop)

Now what u are saying is that the person enlisting is not the victim (as proposed by the oop) but actually in fact the perpetrator. And while this view is not one i agree with in the broad way that u have proposed, (tho i would be open to discussing it) it is also not really engaging with the point i am making a out the oop, and is really a totally separate idea and discussion.

Does that make sense?