Not to delve too deeply into a political debate, but I think a counter-point is fair:

1. Those elected officials are not elected by everyone - in the case of GWB's first term (which many probably think of in this military context) it wasn't even a majority that elected him.

2. Those that do elect officials have a very small choice (lets say 2-3 people who could practically be elected). Further, I'd argue that most only vote on a few key issues, while the elected official has dominion over a vast number of issues.

I don't hold citizens as not at all responsible, but I think its at least fair to argue (in the above context) that the elected officials bear more responsibility - and blame - than the everyday citizen.

You're quite right in your counter-point. And besides it's not always clear beforehand what the key issues are going to be during a politician's term. I reacted more to the wording "Just because they are born in US doesn't make them responsible for the actions of the US military any more than someoe born in Canada, Brazil or Japan." I'd say US citizens are more responsible for US military actions than Canadians, however this definitely does not make the ordinary citizen responsible in the same way as an army general or prominent politician.

Then change the election system..

US citizens(as citizens everywhere) vote for whatever the media feeds them, and media is at least to some extent controlled by the US government(as in every country) or other political influence.

I would also disagree with politicians controlling the military -- perhaps the people in charge do have political power too, but I would argue that the political power and power over the military are rather indirect, it's not the same entity controlling the two, there are multiple people and entities with indirect relationships.