Just because you are a vet or serving currently

[videguy]

According to wikipedia 86.68% of Americans in 2009 graduated high school. Except in a few very unusual circumstances, (pretty much) all military members have a high school diploma.

So assuming more than 86% of military have high school diplomas, this would mean the average intelligence level of military is higher than that of civilians.

This is obviously a very brief and vague argument, which assumes that higher education means higher intelligence, and so on.

Also, according to Educational Attainment in the United States: 2009 - Detailed Tables - U.S. Census Bureau

17% of civilians had a bachelors degree.

Accorfing to wikipedia, about 20% of the military are officers. Assuming all officers have 4 year degrees or higher, (which not all do, but most do, even a lot of LDO's now have 4 year degrees) plus all of the enlisted that have a 4 year degree, this would yet again mean the average intelligence of military is higher than civilian. Although it is true a degree does not measure intelligence, I think it can be assumed that the more education a person has, the smarter they become.

Everyone on here refuting my claim that the AVERAGE military member is more intelligent than the AVERAGE civilian is forgetting that most of the people they work with are probably above average in IQ. Don't forget all the high school dropouts and the "lower IQ jobs" that are a vast majority of Americas service industry and all those not on here seeking degrees and so on in your assesment of the "average" civilian.

I could go on and on but I think I made my point for now.

Consider this: why does the military have an IQ type test required score in order to enlist? The bottom 30% are weeded out. This increases the average score by raising the curve... although it is true that not everyone of military age takes the exam.

You are making assumptions and we all know what happens when you do that. You are also using information from Wikipedia as though it was fact. Wikipedia in general is a good place to get information that should then be checked elsewhere to verify it's accuracy. It should be always taken as fact.
You are talking about 20% of a much smaller pool of people, so again your comparison is not valid.
You also need to look at the number you quoted from Wikipedia. It sounds like you are saying that 86.8% of people eligible to graduate in 2009, actually graduated. That is for one year and does not necessarily reflect the civilian population as a whole, just that group. It does not count people who may have gotten a GED, or gone back later to finish.
It's been fun arguing with you, but you really need to get your facts straight, if you want people to take your opinions seriously. Making broad sweeping statements based on questionable facts and personal observations does not bode well for your arguments.