Not hyperbole: I question the slide from "protecting the interests of a country" to "protecting the other 99% of us". In practice countries' identities have only a loose relationship to the identities of their inhabitants, and only a powerful few get to define the country's interests. And it's often very questionable whether the interests of the country, as defined by those in power and embodied in those institutions that exist to protect these interests, align with the interests of the country's people.

It's also questionable whether the officially accepted purpose of an institution such as an army or police force aligns with its actual behaviour. Human institutions have a tendency to develop a life of their own and become to some extent self-serving and self-protecting. This can warp the functioning of the whole institution until it is not doing what it was originally founded to do.

So: I'd question whether protecting the country's interests is always protecting its people, and I'd question whether institutions founded to protect the country's interests always end up doing that.