irateplatypus

Though provoking question... I don't think you can have one without the other.

I think this issue gets clouded by equating service to a "thing" (be it a country, city, corporation, family, etc) to service to an ideal or principle.

for example, when a military serviceman (or woman) takes their oath they swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States". they don't swear to defend a flag, or a President, or a dry spot between two oceans... they are sworn to support and defend ideals. if the ideals are noble then the actions taken in their defense will most likely be noble.

i believe that the US has (imperfectly) advocated the principles of justice and equality before the law, embodied in its Constitution (also imperfectly), as well as any nation since its inception. so, serving in the US armed forces is inherently a noble profession. that can change with the justice and motivation of the military's actions. we are not noble because we live in a particular part of the world or salute a particular flag.

this is equally true for state and community leaders here in the States, or for the police/military/civic servicemembers in any country. if you are serving to bring about justice and mercy in this world then the scope of your responsibility is irrelevant.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill