I'm not anti-military as a rule but... c'mon. Opinions on the US military vary.

In extremis, were the people working for Pol Pot just good patriots with no moral culpability?

We could surely at least agree that there are cases where working for the military of your home country doesn't fully excuse you from your actions.

In fact, I think international tribunals have existed which operated on just those principles.

We can all agree that working for the Nazi government’s military would be morally compromising, right?

You propose that other governments militaries would not be so compromising. Seems reasonable.

But the question then becomes, what is the operative distinction between the two?