MIlitary atrocities: the big questions

The big questions we need to ask about military atrocities, inspired by this post from We Move To Canada.

To what extent is the military an attractive job to the kind of person who would commit atrocities, and to what extent does military training and culture create the kind of people who would create atrocities? Or does the military contain the same proportion of atrocity-inclined people as the general population, and simply provide them with more opportunities to create atrocities?

If atrocity-inclination is a result of training and/or culture, what aspects of training/culture produce this, and what purpose do these aspects serve (i.e. why are they there in the first place)? How can the military fill the need that is currently filled by these atrocity-producing aspects without encouraging atrocities?

If atrocity-inclination is a result of recruits' personalities going in, how can military training and culture supress or remove this aspect of their personalities?* Does the military benefit from this aspect of their personalities, or is it a liability for them? If the military does benefit, how can they retain the benefits while removing the atrocity-inclination?

If military people are more inclined to atrocities than the general population, do they retain this once they return to the general population? Do they commit atrocities (likely on smaller scale due to circumstances) when in the general population? If so, how can they be reintegrated so they can function normally in civilian society without wanting to commit atrocities (not that civilian society deserves more protection from atrocities than people in war zones - atrocities are atrocities - but I have a feeling that separate approaches might be needed because they are such different environments).

*According to a course I took on institutional environments, taught by an ex-servicemember who was also an academic authority on the subject, the purpose of military training is to break down the recruit's own personality, and then build them back up as the kind of person that the military wants them to be.** This is why I do not think it is unreasonable to expect military training to be able to change recruits' personalities.

**Further questions, unrelated to the topic of atrocities: what is the self-esteem level of new recruits like? I don't claim to have the healthiest self-esteem in the world, but what I find most unappealing about the idea of boot camp (apart from the usual conflicts with my pacifist ethics and phobic sensibilities) is that it is so dehumanizing. I have no desire to work for any organization that would treat me with anything less than basic human respect. If I wanted to be abused and treated like garbage, I'd go back to middle school. So what are people thinking when they willingly signed up to be abused into submission? Do they think themselves so worthless that they deserve to be treated like that? Do they think themselves so great that they won't be treated like garbage? Do they dissociate? Are they already the kind of personality that the military wants them to be?