Maybe, but that doesn't say much. The relationship between soldiers and animals is often complex.

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2011/09/...

I think the key word there is "innocent".

I agree with you in theory but let's not pretend that ieds don't have high collateral damage and that that's not painfully obvious (so there's still probably cognitive dissonance involved in saying something like that).

But there is still a big difference between also blowing up lots of innocent bystanders because $cause is deemed more important and having bloodshed done for show and paying for the privilege of cheering it on. I find it quite unsurprising if someone who does violence professionally isn't turned on by violence for entertainment.

the ferocity of human battles before modern weapons are explicitly re-enacted with a fullness of pain, rage and despair. Solution "no one should do any violence" and "all animals become peaceful" has yet to emerge signed -psuedo-Hemmingway