I would not call people who rule (current nor previous) "elite". Elites were mass murdered during WWII and later during communism, people who rule now have nothing to do with elites.

Leaving out these semantics, choosing which side to join in a war in this modern age is the wrong question to ask. Wars have overwhelmingly historically benefited only the leaders of a nation. Look at how veterans around the world are treated, the war's "benefits" even in the "victor" nation most certainly did not accrue to them in proportion to the risks they undertook.

Unless you are in the leadership, the risk reward calculus for joining a war is almost always tilted greatly against your individual favor. The greater good reward has to be sufficiently compelling to functionally throw away my life in full knowledge leadership will benefit by far more proportionally than I will. That's why I'm grateful there are others with a far lower bar willing to go serve. They are better souls than mine.

I want to see wars invert the sacrifices. When war is launched, leadership, their families and their closest associates and families are the first to die. Those on the "front lines" are the last to die. When the decision to go to war is made, I want the decision to be instantly up close and viscerally personal for the decision makers.

Agree with everything you say. I mentioned WWII because during WWII Polish elites were systematically slaughtered by both invaders (Nazi Germans and Soviet Russia) - example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligenzaktion, but also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre act of mass murdering of Polish officers who were mostly coming from Polish elites...

I have very similar thoughts about wars, I believe the mainstream narratives are only sliding on the surface of real underlying reasons behind wars.