As others have noted, the underlying assumptions of the survey exemplify overweening pride, aka hubris. Dilbert's pointy-haired boss has a lot in common with what seems to undergird the subject survey's questions.

I'd also like to remark on the following:
Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
National service is a part of the American tradition; from the original colonies into the 20th century. It should not be the right or obligation of a tiny minority to contribute to this nation's defense and prosperity.
The idea of national service as a duty of citizenship is fundamentally at odds with the principles that led to the formation of America, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. That document identified rights as fundamental, not duties. If the nation's principle value set is based on rights, which logically implies that one is free (not obliged), then obligatory national service is fundamentally unfair and unjust. I make this last assertion because 1. an obligation limits one's rights to life, liberty, and pursuing happiness, and 2. justice and fairness define each other.

Fortunately for the US of A, enough of its residents seem to believe and act on the the concept that "freedom isn't free," that sometimes obligations are more important than permissions. I fear that the pool of folks who hold this belief may be shrinking too quickly, fueled by the rise in entitlements that started with the spoils system of Andrew Jackson's administration, built up a massive head of steam with the New Deal, and has continued to mushroom since the Kennedy administration.