I'm not sure it is so cut and dried. Sue didn't elaborate on the reasoning behind and meaning of her comment. I don't always agree with her but she seems reasonable and caring. I'm also not insensitive to the numbers of animals injured and killed serving what would seem to be a situation of short term military significance. In fifty years will the lives, human and animal, and treasure spent in Iraq and Afghanistan be deemed worthwhile? Was Grenada, Panama, Vietnam worth it? Does that change over time? It is what it is and nobody at the time was entirely free to say yes or no.

Better if none of the animals, two legged or four, had to be injured or killed. But dogs would seem to be particularly well qualified for certain jobs.