>Implying today's US politicians would actually make competent decisions even at war time (though they are tecnically already are in various wars).
The wars we've been in have mostly been little skirmishes with goat herders armed with Cold War-era gear that was already outdated during said Cold War. I'd go so far as to say the last time the US faced a legitimate threat was the reason North and South Korea exist (due to Chinese interference/wave tactics) if not WWII.
>Because an actual unfucked military would likely made a coup if they are send to another hellhole and unnecesary war while the US are in the state they are.
I think there are many factors to consider on why the US wouldn't unfuck their military and couldn't persist in a major war in the state they are in unless that major war is China with the intention of arming other countries at a profit to fight for them, which they could do. However, a military coup is not one of those factors. At least not in my eyes. The entire point of having the leader of the executive (military) branch of office in charge of signing off on shit congress wants to do outside of super-majorities has always been to prevent
a military coup which is why the president is supposed to have stronger ties to the military than they do to politicians. This creates its own problems, but I won't get into that. The main takeaway is that only 12 of the USA's presidents have not been veterans, and most of those were either during long-lasting times of peace or are otherwise regarded as some of the worst presidents in US history. India does not have a direct military tie between their Prime Minister and President the way the US does with our president and majority leader. India's president cannot veto to force a supermajority- he can only send a bill back with recommendations at which point whether changes are made or not, it will become law when passed again. He elects the Prime Minister, but he's expected to elect the majority leader as the PM, and while he is considered the "head of the military" that power is actually invested in the PM for all practical purposes. In effect, the President of India who's supposed to be the military leader is a purely ceremonial position comparable to England's Queen or Japan's Emperor.
tl;dr- it's complicated but the US military won't coup unless a Democrat without veteran status (such as a woman) is elected.