I was fortunate enough to be awarded a flying scholarship back in the 80s - so started my flying at a civilian club, albeit paid for by the RAF. However I was aware that each flight was monitored closely and a failure to make the required standard could have led to the flying being terminated. After a reasonable period away from flying I was again fortunate and offered a career as a pilot in the RAF. I actually enjoyed the marching/saluting/running up and down hills bit. As far as flying training is concerned the biggest difference is the standard you are required to meet for each phase of training. The phrase "every ride is a chop ride" while obviously not entirely true - certainly has some validity in a military flying career - certainly more so than those friends of mine who trained down a PPL route and, although the 'failure' of a trip would mean much more personal financial cost, it wouldn't necessarily end one's training. As a pilot who was by no means gifted on Basic flying, Advanced flying on the Hawk and subsequently rotary training and operations - the scrutiny military pilots are under is constant and bloody demanding - even single-seat, as you are being judged by either the rest of the formation or the Cine/video evidence on return. As also stated elsewhere, flying an aircraft - be it a Harrier, a Herc or a Puma, is only a very small part of the training. Once this is achieved, it is the operating the platform that is the big difference compared to much GA flying - and not just a single aircraft, but planning ahead for your whole formation. These skills then have to be completely mastered for when we subsequently take these aircraft to war, there is so much else going on that if the basics of operating the whole package aren't second nature then it makes life far too difficult to cope with the threats.
Because this is how we operated day to day - it certainly, hopefully, leads to confidence in one's own ability. The very fine line to tread is not to turn this confidence into arrogance - for a number of reasons - but mostly in my experience and arrogant pilot/nav/WSO(p) is a dangerous operator, and there is no need to be arrogant. There are, unfortunately a few in the military who really believe they have a reason to feel superior to other operators in the airspace and for this - I can only apologise. To be fair - most military pilots realise that - while what we do is a job - its not just us out there and a healty respect must be garnered. We are fortunate/have worked hard enough/been in the right place at the right time/whatever to find ourselves doing a job that many people would love to do. We get paid to do that job and nothing in the way of fuel, landing fees, insurance, engineering etc etc etc comes out of our own pockets. When I started GA flying again the price of all these things certainly shocked me and many military pilots are, while not unaware, probably don't realise that, for example - at certain airfields - each touch-and-go is paid for.
As far as a military pilot looking at GA - its probably similar to how any professional looks at a non-professional doing their work as a hobby. Its easy to dismiss them as 'amateurs' and 'getting in the way'. - and sometimes, some of the GA fraternity only re-inforce that image. The issue of "ignoring the MATZ dimensions because I only have to legally recognize the ATZ" is, to me, utter foolishness yet it seems to constantly rear its head. Saying this I am fully aware that no military pilot is perfect. I have made some horrific navigational errors (amongst others) - often at quite fast speeds and had to face the music. Military pilots cock up constantly - and anyone from the military who thinks we don't is far worse than any GA pilot.
I think mutual respect is obviously the name of the game. The best pilot (at handling an aircraft and putting exactly where is should be) I have ever witnessed was a GA pilot and I was truly in awe of his skill,spacial awareness and handling ability. However I have also witnessed a 10-ship of helicopters, at night in fairly poor visibility at low level, hit a nebulous target somewhere in Iraq at a time +/- 5 seconds, come under fire from small-arms and RPGs - deliver its 'cargo' then split into 4 sections, support a ground operation, exfil said cargo and return to base. This was led by a fairly junior squadron pilot who again - did nothing but fill me with utter confidence and awe in his operating ability.
We share the airspace and we are all losers if conflicts cause more restrictions, or poor operations on either party causes two aircraft to come together. There is always more we can do to learn about each other's way of doing business.
I may have painted a one-sided view of how I see it - but hopefully we will all continue to evolve and develop a mutual respect.