This military-VS-civil training regime has been raised numerous times previously, and the answer is simple.
Military pilots are trained in an environment where every risk must be taken in pursuit of the objective - the military task/objective at hand.
Civil pilots are trained to take no risks in pursuit of the objective - which is generally just safe arrival of aircraft and all pax at the destination.

Yep, spot on mate.

When I was in the military I used to kick the tyres, light the fires and launch no matter what, bugger that risk assessment.

Now on the other side of the fence, if there's a cloud in the sky or the slightest hint of an unserviceability, it's sorry folks, too risky today - we're not going.

Sorry onetrack but I think that the problem is a lack of departmental will to do anything about it and a lack of cooperation rather than the somewhat darker and misguided assumption you're making.

It's not an assumption on my part, nor is it misguided. The subject was raised many years ago, by people in substantially higher positions than I, and with substantial levels of aviation experience - when the RAAF and Army Aviation, were the major training area and source of supply for pilots, for the then current civilian airlines.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing (the military training I received was 1st grade, and I learnt a vast amount that has stood me in good stead in civilian life - besides blowing things up :) ) - all I'm saying is that the requirements of military aims and tasks are substantially different to the requirements and aims of civilian tasks - and that this has been previously recognised and spoken about, by the higher-ups.

I personally see no problem with someone with military training undergoing an assessment to see if they are suitable for, and cope with, civilian tasks, that are often at a boringly lower excitement level than most military tasks - particularly where aircraft are involved.