I was playing devil's advocate. But to be more direct, I believe that...
-That AD servicemembers earn every bit of their pay and compensation.
-John Q. Public really doesn't have any idea what most of the military does, how many hours the guys work, the optempo servicemembers have been 'asked' to maintain, so he's going to start to build an image of guys being paid to not do anything.
-That parading images of people who were wounded in a war that is over as support of why someone who has never seen combat (which amounts to a large majority of servicemembers) should collect retirement as early as 38 is not going to change their minds.
-That given the more static commitments the DoD has made, it will have no choice but to cut personnel compensation to meet capability goals. Which is really infuriating.
So I think that cutting personnel benefits is the wrong place to look, but I think that it's the only option officials are left with in the near term as long as the government keeps crying poverty. But I also think that someone with 2 arms and 2 legs countering that with "but here's an image of a soldier dismembered in a war we're not fighting anymore, I deserve it!" isn't a good argument and that people are going to get tired of hearing it. I think a better line would be to sell them on why we still need to maintain military capability and that their money is still being put to good use. Because we do, and we can.