Perhaps I perceive a failure of communications.

It seems to me the issue raised is whether we treat animals as companions with an inherent entitlement to as good a life as circumstances permit, or with the minimal consideration required to have them available for use as discardable tools without any inherent right to be treated well.

I did not sense any argument that animals should be treated better than humans who we put in harm's way, only that animals sent in harm's way be treated respectfully - perhaps especially because unlike humans it is not likely such animals have any realistic choice about their duty.

Callous use of animals is no more defensible than callous use of humans. Unnecessary sacrifice of animals is to be avoided just as is unnecessary sacrifice of humans.

If it comes down to a choice between necessary sacrifice of an animal or of a human, then there is no difference of opinion. The point in both cases is to make sure there is no reasonable alternative to such sacrifice and that sacrifice is really necessary.