What I mean is they're made to be literally wage slaves to corporate interests. American soldiers obviously are not; though in the eyes of some critics - including yourself, yes? - they're essentially serving corporate interests.
In a functioning army, what individual soldiers below the top ranks of general/admiral and colonel/naval captain think is about as relevant as the color of their hair or the kind of underwear they pick out on leave. When lower ranked soldiers start thinking for themselves, it's called a breakdown in discipline. Such an occurrence is diagnostic of a revolutionary crisis.
Functional democratic governments attempt to promote the general interests of "Business," all of them, including their long term need to pacify the masses. In foreign affairs, the use of force is applied according to ideas about what these general interests are, not according to a specific corporations balance sheet. Specific corporations usually make more short-term profit from stability, peace, rather than war. Only arms contractors and military contractors have a vested in conflict, whether overt, covert or potential. The ideas that guide the political leadership may involve whipping up war scares or inspire armed assaults that do not directly serve any significant
short-term interest. False ideas may lead to significant long-term damage to corporate interests, which in my opinion is why the Democratic Party got more corporate money in the last presidential election. But a mistake that hurts business in the long run is not the same as being anticorporate.
If a Republican lobbying firm for a telecommunications firm tries to influence US foreign policy to accept a military coup in Honduras because Zelaya was nationalizing a telephone company, or a Republican politician encouraged his political associates in Georgia to believe they has US permission to invade South Ossetia, that is gross corruption.
Formally, a violation of democracy of this sort is regarded as something to be corrected by exposing the crime, which will be punished by the good authorities. Which is the point of going through the basics of foreign interventions: Avatar does not write its heroes as saving the natives by exposing the machinations of the corporation. Which is the default, genuinely patronizing take that should properly be criticized as racist.