Two groups starting a war, even today when war is no longer thought of as the judgment of God, entrust the process of killing with the function of deciding which of the two groups is “right,” as if the process of rational verification were replaced by killing as a criterion of truth in a massive sadistic transformation of the validation processes.

The enemy is experienced as the force that destroys our love object, which is why men see war as a duty and why it is considered one of the basic human values. Those who make war are not driven by a hate need, but by a love need. Moreover, they feel they must accept the need for self-sacrifice so that their love objects might live.

The fact that men see war as a duty toward their love object has been neglected. The problem is to disclose the ambiguous character of war as an experience of love, based on the alienation of the bad parts of the self which are projected onto the enemy, who consequently is experienced as the destroyer of one’s love object.

The paradox is that the instinct of self-preservation becomes inoperative in war—so that men no longer seem to care about death but accept it as an essential part of the game—finds explanation in the fact that in war the instinct of self-preservation does not function on the individual level but rather on the level of the collective love object.

The function of war is preservation of the common love object, which is why men see war not as collective armed aggression but as a duty to risk death and to kill, to become simultaneously hunters and prey, sacrificers and victims. What is at stake in war is not so much the safety of the individual as the safety of the collective love object.