it actually makes me feel fully out of touch with consensus when people say an author is anti-war "because he said war is hell!"
please. please. do you know a single thing about Recorded Human History. "war is hell" is so, so frequently THE pro-war take, and the entire reason soldiers and officers receive social esteem for fighting. the honorable duty of undergoing The Trials Of War on behalf of your polity &/or beliefs is one of the fundamental cornerstones of masculinity in SO, SO many human cultures. what is anyone EVEN SAYING!!!
in a modern context, one could even argue that the emphasis placed on the traumatic nature of waging war, of participating in war, is part of how the participants morally absolve themselves from their participation. There is a common idea in liberalism (but not only in liberalism) that the trauma of killing one person, or ten, a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, et cetera, is its own punishment, regardless of whether the persons killed were soldiers or civilians, whether it could even be considered right or wrong, whether it was necessary or unnecessary to kill them. Under this logic, renumeration or reconstruction for the victims is considered functionally irrelevant because of the exonerating suffering of the soldier.
In âIsraelâ they call this kind of narrative in media âShooting and crying.â
This kind of apologia is/was often applied to the US militaryâs actions in every historical conflict, up to the present day. I have also seen American police officers use this kind of apologia when they are criticized for discrimination, murder, and various other crimes. They say âOh, you civilians couldnât possibly understand how hard it is to be a cop. Itâs so difficult and traumatic.â
I think this idea of âexonerating traumaâ is both dangerous and widespread. Iâm sure there are many other examples of this type of rhetoric.

















