From the sanitized language (the "destroys the enemy through mounted close combat" euphemism kind of glosses over the killing part of said combat), to the almost smug dismissal of pacifists, I'm seeing a lot of rhetoric being put into deflecting the criticisms of the military without actually addressing them.
Like... the author mentions the Peterloo Massacre, the Boer War, and the Iraq War, and completely blows past them, and then goes on to explain how good the military is at building character and stuff. And I have no doubt it's true, but somehow I don't think Iraqis were especially thrilled to know the foreign troops occupying their country were from socially and economically diverse backgrounds.
Speaking as someone who supports my own country's government, mostly supports my country's military involvement abroad, and would enroll (hopefully) without hesitation if our territory were invaded, I've considered taking military-related jobs in the future, and I still might.
But if I did, it would be because I decided the positive outcomes of France's military interventions outweighs the negatives; which, given our past exactions, and the current state of Lybia, is... not at all obvious. My moral calculus certainly wouldn't be "on the one hand we're destabilizing poorer countries for cheap oil, but on the other hand the army sure pushes me out of my comfort zone and that's great".