If the individual sacrifices greater values for a lessor values, then yes. Otherwise, no.
This is not a one single firm answer from the collective mind type question. It's all about the individual and what each person values.

well, to your last point, that is called working as a team and is important in most military operations. As well, making promises between one another and sticking to a code of conduct is perfectly rational and in self interest. NOT altruism. I am now going to torture you with an Objectivist's definition of altruism because I think there is some confusion:

"What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.” '-AR, Philosophy Who Needs It?

If you understood my reason for serving, you would know no thanks is necessary.

I can assume by your confusion you haven't served. If you did, I would be surprised (shocked?) by not understanding that simple trade off.

I love my country and what it stood for. If its that part you don't understand, then we have no common ground to talk about.

On top of that, I got a multifaceted education, hands-on (and nerve wracking) leadership and decision making experience I wouldn't see in civilian life for many years. And it turned me from a no-account immature naïve person to someone who could stand up for her beliefs, convictions, and values, who could think under fire and make decisions impacting lives - and continue on.

You can't *buy* that at any cost, except by trading something of equal value.

Nothing "altruistic" in that at all. I did it for me, and for my home, family, and nation. I think - no, I *KNOW* - I came out way ahead on the deal.

Like I said... if you haven't been there, you can't understand.

Have you?

Robbie actually agrees with the rest of the Gulchers far more than he is given credit for. Most of us have one or two issues that we disagree with AR on. If that weren't the case, GaltsGulchOnline would be pretty boring.

Honestly said, Jim; and I agree with you.

I have read it now, and I still struggle with this issue. There are a couple of things that AR and I disagree on. If that makes me a heretic, that's OK with me. I can live with myself. If I were forced to agree with AR on absolutely everything, I would be in contradiction with myself and could not function properly.

Why is it so necessary that personal motivation always be "objectively observable" to you?

Facts as interpreted through our own perception.

People ignore the filter perception at their own peril.

The world is a messy place and you have to make judgments continually. You make that judgment using the best facts you have and your own reasoning and perception.

This is one of the areas where schools are really sticking it to the students. Teaching people to never judge anything is basically teaching them to never think for themselves either.

A=A is still true. You are who you are. People are not all the same. What is fundamental about humans and therefor common is the ability to reason. Reasoning is an individual activity and only has meaning if you can act on your thoughts. This means anything that keeps you from being able to use your reason is bad. That eliminates the use of force except against those who initiate force. So the draft is eliminated. In a free country it contradicts its very basis and in a not free country serving in the military is not in your self interest.

Have a closer look at Mother Theresa and you might find yourself vilifying her for things other than altruism.

An even tougher question.

Objectivism fits me very well, so in that respect I would consider myself one, if you force me to self label.

Are there areas of friction between Objectivism and my personality? Yes

If I am required to be 100% in line with every tenet of Objectivism I guess the OI would say I am not.

I am not an atheist, so if that is your criteria of exclusion then I am not an Objectivist.

Some here would "shun" me on that basis, some would not.

Isn't military service "living for the sake of other men?"

For some, that is their altruistic purpose. For others it the free education, room, board and training. For others it is what their step-father demands. For others they want to fly a fighter jet. For others...
It is all about the individual.