Well, yes.
Possibly the difference in America is that appreciation of the military service rendered by soldiers is often dressed up as appreciation of the soldiers as individuals, but this is lip service and universally understood as such. Nobody seriously thought that the “Support Our Troops!” stickers and badges that proliferated during the Afghan and Iraqi wars were calls for more spending on mental health services for veterans. They were calls for support for the war policy.
The British seem to have at least a subgroup who try to support the troops, from what I can tell from watching Top Gear.
The Japanese are positive about their armed forces, but the JSDF is more like a domestic Peace Corps than a military, to some extent, so I’m not sure that it’s a relevant example.
The recent VA hospital flap demonstrated how little the American people (or their representatives, but I think in this congress reflects them) is interested in supporting the troops if it means paying higher taxes. And whether failure to support the troops is obviously not a policy of either party, there is not doubt which party is unalterably opposed to raising taxes for any reason.
This constant “but people won’t pay more taxes” refrain is just silly.
Until the VA hospital flap, most Americans were largely unaware such a problem existed at all or that insufficient tax dollars were being dedicated to it. You cannot blame people for refusing to pay for a problem they do not know exists - a problem that in fact elements of the VA had apparently gone to very considerable lengths to hide.
And that problem now being known, who says higher taxes are an obvious solution? I suspect a great many people would be quite rightly suspicious that higher taxes would help no veterans at all, since the mendacious and abysmal VA administration apparently cannot be trusted with the rather large sums of money it gets now. For that matter why not simply spent the money on the VA that is not being spent on fighting a war in Iraq? Or stop paying for ethanol programs or other such nonsense? There is not that obvious a connection between higher taxes and instant relief for needy veterans.
In Spain people mostly ignore the military and tend to think of them more of a “source of low-level, well-organized labor for emergency situations” (cf. cleaning up black tides, helping after an earthquake) and “organizers of large events” (cf. providing tents and food to thousands of pilgrims on Papal visits) than “people who may go to dangerous places and get killed”. The third part is highly disapproved of, and even more the part where “they may go to dangerous places and kill someone”.
The military tend to be a sort of separate caste: they have their own housing, they often don’t make civilian friends where they are living (even when living there for decades). Since the conscription ended, this is even more so than when a large amount of low-level coms and non-coms were conscripts.
They are also not allowed to wear their uniforms when not on duty; this is normal for uniformed jobs in general, but in the case of the military it’s an actual ban on it. If you meet someone who’s military in a context in which professions don’t get mentioned, you won’t know it.
It’s also one of those cases where some people have a negative, or even very negative, opinion about a group, but no problem at all with the immense majority of those who make up the group. These people will be quick to tell you that “the military” (or “the border guards”, or “the police”) do this and that wrong, but individual members get the same treatment as everybody else of “you’re ok until you prove you’re an asshole”.
On the other hand, if people genuinely cared about the welfare of soldiers, wouldn’t you expect them to find out that this problem exists? I mean, it’s not rocket science; service in a war zone is traumatic, mentally and often physically, and you’d expect long-term consequences for those who serve. And in a society which cared about such matters, you’d expect media attention. A media which gives lots of coverage of photo opportunities of service personnel being reunited with their loved ones, but rather less coverage of ex-service personnel doing it tough in the community, is possibly reflecting a society which appreciates the former but would prefer not to know about the latter.
That could be equally true of any government expenditure. And, as already pointed out, scepticism about the efficiency or efficacy of government spending hasn’t prevented Americans from supporting - or, at least, bearing uncomplainingly - the absolutely staggering amounts of their tax dollars which go to the armed services. If they don’t express scepticism about that actual tax burden, but do express scepticism about even the possibility of taxation to pay for the welfare of veterans, we’re tempted to draw a certain conclusion.
In the UK the army is the least glamourous of the three armed forces. It is a small army, professional army. More attention goes to the Navy, which calls itself the ‘Senior Service’. I guess this stems from the island geography and the role of the navy in the protection of sea routes, national defence and the projection of power around the word. The airforce also has had a greater profile since the Battle of Britain when airmen became seen as heroes. The army, in contrast,…well the Duke of Wellington called them the scum of the earth.
There certainly is not the American propensity for grand parades and I have heard stories of American passengers spontaneously applauding service men in uniform flying on civilian passenger jets. They certainly don’t do that sort of thing over here.
Some other countries admire their armed forces. In India, for example, the army is one of the most respected institutions (I believe.)
Are military parades through UK streets actually common? I live and work in central London and can only think of the military parading on Remembrance Day and on a few occasions dedicated to the Queen.
Certainly, boarding a flight on the US carrier and hearing “active servicemen in uniform” being called for early boarding still gets a big old 
. I’ve also never heard anyone in the UK thank a member of the military for their service, outside of a formal government-led occasion.
One can probably see this topic in light of the presence of mandatory national service.
Nowadays, hell no. Too much history of the military being used as a tool of oppression. Back in the day, by the White minority, there was a certain degree of “support the troops on the Border” mentality, but it was far from universal.
Well, no, actually. People do have jobs, families and lives to lead, and engaging in a detailed investigation of the VA administration is not something most people have the time or capability to do. I personally do not have the ability or resources to engage in a detailed audit of all the government departments whose functions I consider necessary, and know of no one who does.
Not just Americans. Plenty of cultures embrace suicide bombing, revenge/honor killings, executions without trial, torture, mutilation etc etc. You might get debate over the term “myth”, also.
I think arguably having a longer history than the US (depending on how you define it) and having been in putative power over a lot of the world for so long, there’s a considerable, wide-ranging (both in time and distance) and accepted history of British soldiers… well, being the sort of people and doing the sort of things that aren’t at all worthy of veneration. When we were even there for a “good” cause in the first place. That’s not to say that it’s assumed all soldiers are evil cads, but I’d agree that there seems to be a lesser offering of the benefit of the doubt as to their heroic character.
That said, specific instances of soldiers being heroic are celebrated, and things like the Victoria Cross (our equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honour, loosely) are still a big deal. Too, I’d say that while the average soldier might not be venerated so strongly… veterans of specifically WWI and WWII very much are, as are those conflicts in general. You wouldn’t be expected to wear a poppy around Remembrance Day, but you’d see a lot of them about.
This is a loose idea that I’m not entirely sure of, but my impression also of American reactions to military service takes the form of a more “our heroes” type of thing (and I apologise if I have got that wrong), where here it’s more like… a respect for having been through a lot of shit. To put it mildly. I don’t know that that’s really a difference exactly.
I think that touches on a big cultural difference. We tend to romanticize our servicemen as “defenders of freedom,” since freedom is such a big part of the founding story (I won’t say myth) of the US. I know that every country enshrouds its wars in higher ideals, but we tend to think this way whether we’re at war or not. A common bumper sticker you see in the US is “Love your freedom? Thank a vet.” I have a hard time imagining an equivalent slogan in, say, most of the European countries.
Re the long-term, professional military: I have the impression that in the UK – independently of the “virtuous / brave, versus not so virtuous / brave”, issue – people widely perceive the army as generally less clued-up about things, than the other armed forces. When the British army bungles some operation; or when something stupid is done (including in civilian contexts) by an individual, or a group of, army or ex-army person(s); a favourite saying is, “Thank God we’ve got a Navy !”