BiffbarfPatagonia's been a major player in outfitting US troops for quite some time now, which I think is rad. It is, however, terribly ironic considering their stance on the environment and how little the military gives a fuck about it.
So making long lasting, high quality gear, manufactured in a generally more sustainable fashion with typically slightly more environmentally friendly materials is ironic? IMO it would be ironic if they turned down those contracts to let a lesser company supply the forces with worse gear, made in a less sustainable manner. Patagonia supplying the forces is has a net positive impact compared to the alternatives.
Also with all the government money flowing to Patagonia because of these contracts, they're able to continue support environmental causes, develop more sustainable manufacturing methods, and provide those methods to their manufacturers all over the world.