Already ahead of you. I went with the idea that gangs and hate groups are still infiltrating militaries, but that when you're in a unit with other people, you put aside your differences and bond, ultimately becoming a cohesive fighting unit. My ork's old buddy is a Humanis member named Buzz, and even though my guy is an ork and Buzz publically is against the "metahuman agenda," they're still friends, even if quietly. I took him as a Loyalty 5 contact (connections 2 if I remember right.) I figured having a latino ork befriending a white Humanis member is appropriately ironic, and very cool.

Armed conflicts:

Ongoing:

Yucatan: Currently a spirti war between natural and toxic spirits with the rebels and Aztlan militaries in the background.

Siberia: War between Awakened forces and Russian militaries in Siberia. Mostly a guerilla type war.

Philippines: guerilla war between Filipino guerillas vs. Japan and Japancorp forces.

Peru: Guerilla war by Shining Path(and others) vs. Peru gov. and Japanese military.

Uruguay: Argentine/Aztlan funded guerillas vs. Amazonian forces.

Balkans: Probably civil wars going on in former Yugoslavia. Sarajevo is a warzone.

Libya/Tripoli: Yearly Desert wars corporate contests.

Cambodia: Civil war Naga vs. Cambo gov.

Central Africa/Congo area: One big clusterfuck, civil war, corps vs. tribes vs. proxies vs. each other.

Egypt: Low level insurgency civil war between Islamic Egyptian gov. vs. Cult of Isis or resurgent old religion.

Southern Texas: Low level insurgency between Texan nationalists and Aztlan military.

Potential conflicts:

Amazonia vs. Aztlan: After the events of Ghost Cartels, the bordes between Amazonia and Aztlan are extra hot as both militiaries beef up their troops there. Might also drag in Argentina into the conflict on the side of Aztlan.

CSA vs. Aztlan: Always very bad relations between the two especially after Denver. Border is always tense, more so now. Potential to drag in UCAS, Pueblo Council and the Carribean League as well too(also Amazonia too might take advantage).

Azania vs. Angola: Both militaries are massing on the border of Namibia.

Israel vs. Syria/jordan: Israel just did air strikes on Syrian positions near the border. Might drag in the Saudis or Egypt as well.

Tsimtsihan vs. Sioux Council: Relations between the two are already bad and might drag in the other Native American nations as well.

Ultimately you have to decide what you think the military is going to look like in the future. You've got a couple of choices

A) A 'future warrior' based military - the individually augmented soldiers with strong training fighting as conventional soldiers. In this modifications will be common, but they only be equipment that cannot be replicated by technology - so airtanks won;t be a feature (as you can have scuba gear) but IP enhancing mods will be nigh on universal. The only exception is eyes, ears and datajacks, were the inability of soldiers to lose them might be worth it.

Gear will be good, pay will be good, morale will be good

People exiting from that sort of unit will look much like todays military.

B) 'We're all riggers now!' based military - very few individual infantrymen who will all be trained to a high standard. However, a squad will have like seriously 2-3 guys instead of 7-11 everyone else will be a drone. And then there will be more drones. And the entire supply chain will be drones. You may have personal responsibility for 20+ drones (including micro drones) This force will be highly mechanized (to carry all the equipment). A small component of this army will be classed as 'light infantry' or 'paratroopers' and look more like selection A

Gear will be excellent, Morale will be high and pay will be high, but there will have been a total force size reduction.

People exiting from this force will be technologists with strong training in mechanics - though maybe not so much as you might think, as maint drones would be common -and rigging because they will have done it a lot. Individual weapon skills would be de-emphasized outside of light infantry, because in the mech unit your drones have 9 LMGs worth of firepower + grenade launchers + your IFVs assault cannon, so the contribution of your squad's 3 assault rifles is somewhere between irrelevant and useless.

C) 'We're vietnam era shittness soldiers' Drug use will be high, quality of soldiers will be low. Gear will be poor, morale will be low and pay will be worse, force size may have increased.

C is more dystopic, I think B is the scenario you'd actually end up with, A is more 'playable' story wise. This will dictate what your guy would look like.

I'd say a mix of a) and b) for the more prosperous states and the megacorps, and c) for the poor countries in the third world. In both a) and b) you can have a background for an augmented infantry soldier, or a more rigger-oriented character, so both seem equally playable with regards to options.

Sorry to drag this up - where'd you get that info? Or is it just "Target: Wastelands." that features actual desert wars goodies?