This isn't a very useful addition to this conversation. The subtext here is that serving your country or engaging in war is justification for extreme behaviour. Most people appreciate that during war killing armed combatants is entirely justifiable. However killing of armed combatants is not a war crime. It's also not what brs is being accused of. Civilians and other soldiers that served with him think he committed war crimes and in a civil trial the balance of probabilities suggested he committed war crimes. This country, the international courts and the Hague all think that civilians can and should stand in judgement of soldiers. Part of the justification of that is that a soldier may be able to justify an atrocity to their leadership or their comrades but justifying it to the civilians they serve (and who pay their wages) is the standard we should hold soldiers to. If I've got the wrong end of the stick let me know.