Question

I’ve often wondered to what extent those who argue in favor of the exemption under the slogan “Torah is his occupation” — on the grounds that the Torah studied by those receiving the exemption during the years when they’re supposed to be in the army (and during hours when they supposedly wouldn’t be studying in the army) is what protects the people — actually believe this, and to what extent it’s just a cover for avoiding a world of effort and danger, with the people saying it knowing full well that it’s a bluff. 
Isn’t their knowledge that in practice most of those receiving the exemption are not really people whose Torah is their occupation, and that this nevertheless serves them as a ticket to get out of service, decisive proof? After all, some of them say that theoretically they support denying the exemption to anyone who doesn’t truly fit that category — although in practice they have done nothing in that direction and have no intention of doing anything in that direction. So do they really think that?
I came across the fact that already from the period of Ottoman rule here, “Torah is his occupation” was used as an excuse to evade compulsory service.
Afterward I saw in In Praise of Rabbi Kook, from p. 328 onward, that Rabbi Kook in England also used this exemption and knowingly granted it even to Sabbath desecrators… and even mocked those who did go out to fulfill their civic duty and defend their country rather than using this exemption.
In other words, this is a known and accepted method for evading civic obligations. Of course Rabbi Kook in England and the Hakham Bashi in the Land of Israel did not think that this exemption was providing military salvation to England and to Turkey at the same time; obviously it was also granted to people who didn’t study, weren’t studying, and wouldn’t study.
What is the Rabbi’s opinion on this?