Does a Limited Term Affect How Military vs Police Tightens Ranks in Defending "Bad Apples"?

Here's a compelling good explanation why military has less of a "code of silence" & less tolerance of brutality (at least when it comes to their own people): most military people only serve a limited amount of time then return to the civilian life. In addition: many who serve in in the military these days are marginalized diverse people who have the military as their best opportunity to better their life. 

And in the meantime: cops often try to make law enforcement their career, they're trying to build up their pensions, which ends up creating an identity and class of their own with interests of their own.

Grossman, who came up with killology, the warrior culture ideology, and provides classes to make it easier for cops to kill, even indirectly these aspects in his book On Killing (but more that soldiers need to have some leave to rest, so they don't accumulate trauma and PTSD from being in the killing fields so long) before he pretty much goes into a dog whistle tirade that the cops need to be able to kill because gangs are monsters tearing down civilization. 

So maybe part of the solution is that someone can only be a cop for many years (like 5-10?), then they have to retire and enter civilian life. Maybe instead of a pension, they get access to money for an education? There's probably a lot of creative ideas that can executed, but the impermanence of the position then a requirement to go back into everyday civilian life seems like an important aspect tp fighting the tendency of cops to pull up into themselves to defend each other and feel immune from prosecution & judgment. 

Why the US military usually punishes misconduct but police often close ranks (from The Conversation)