I apologize if I am being dense but this is such a strange position to me that I do not understand how you could arrive at this conclusion. I am genuinely inter

I apologize if I am being dense but this is such a strange position to me that I do not understand how you could arrive at this conclusion. I am genuinely interested in understanding what is that I am missing. "War" seems to be a distinctly societal enterprise; this societal component is so important that it does not make sense to think about it on an individual level. If you do approach "war" at the individual level how do you distinguish it from simply carrying out violence? I also have trouble with the notion that someone is better equipped to identify and assess moral principles and ideals (I dont think it matters if you are a universalist or relativist here) simply because of one's participation in and proximity to combat. Is a mercenary as credible as someone that was motivated by political idealism? Bloodlust? The simple desire to avoid a prison sentence? What do you do with the devout Quaker who would rather be incarcerated than violate their commitment to pacifism? In general how does someone establish there bona fides for the identification and characterization of moral principles and ideals? On an entirely separate note: I don't care if Chesty Puller or Audie Murphy show up; I think it is absurd for anyone to maintain that Karl Malantes' writing is based on the assumption that war is inherently noble.