I've known quite a few soldiers/military folk in my time. I admire their interest in serving their country, even those who did so for lack of other viable options or out of family obligation, but there's a good percentage of them I wouldn't trust to run an ice cream stand and a few I wouldn't trust to make change for a nickel. Not any more or less than the general population, but military service is no guarantee of a greater ability to govern or lead or certainly to develop solutions to problems. It looks good on the resume and makes for a good shield from criticism on certain topics (like Republicans who wear flag pins to "support the troops", but consistently vote against pay increases that might get some soldiers off of government assistance programs to feed their families or providing them with body armor).
Given how the Right treated John McCain and called him a RINO and weak and given his military experience (which has been talked about enough that I won't rehash, but good luck finding a politician who can compete with it) I think it's clear even the MAGA crowd (well, especially the MAGA crowd who are enthralled by a draft-dodger who mocked soldiers for dying for others) doesn't give a damn about it as a qualifying trait.
It's like term limits, sounds good and like it makes sense until you take a minute to really think about it. You think there'd be more or less corruption if the halls of Congress were a turnstile and folks didn't have to worry about reelection every cycle? If people were gone before investigations got off the ground, let alone wrapped up? There'd be more or less transition to and from the private sector jobs that they influence or have oversight of? That people would be better at their jobs without experience working with the other side or navigating the systems/institutions they're expected to govern? It makes sense like "throw out all the bums" makes sense, sounds good to get off your chest but doesn't hold up under examination.