The purpose of war is not to kill, but to cause people to die. By describing war as "killing," we think of men as "masculine," covering up the fact that warfare is the occasion when men are required to die (for their nation or some other sacred entity). 

It's pathetic the way men are sent to die, the opposite of "male aggression." Of course, we'd prefer not to face this truth.

The cause of death is the sacred object to which human beings submit. It is usually the nation in the name of which human beings die, allowing us to conceive of murdering soldiers as something noble.

Submission not aggression is the essence of warfare. Submission is conceived as “aggression” to rescue the image of the soldier as “masculine.” 

The essence of warfare is "dying for one's country," though the historians write as if each nation is desperate to "win." Of course, there has to be a "winner" and a "loser" of any particular war because each war, finally, has "end."

The purpose of the war is the dying. This proves there are objects "up above" concrete existence. Concrete existence is not enough for human beings.

 The naive young men, seeking glory, rarely knowing they are being sent to die--until they get there--and then the dying begins.

By virtue of the death of naive young men, nation-states come into being. Death and bodily mutilation constitute the material foundation.

Then these young men who have been sent to die are called "heroes," and historians write long "books" about each war. This is their job. To expand upon a simple mechanism, making things seem meaningful and complex.

How else to achieve "tenure."

Richard Koenigsberg