Yes, I think so, but from the point of view of Heidegger’s successor, Sartre. It is inauthentic for the average soldier to think of his own death, since only those of others’ death has he been ever concerned about.He simply can not think of his own death, b
ecause he does not understand himself in his own life.
This form of the inauthentic life can be seen in all forms of soldiers’ life, they do not even understand why they are fighting.
There is no meaning for soldiers, except that which subsists in the color of the enemy, and like a bull who
reacts with anger at the color of red waved at him,
his reactions are peripheral and topical. He is not allowed to look beneath the surface, even if he could, and the ones who can and do, are quickly got rid of,
one way or another.
It makes more sense for a general to order his troops to combat, or even a marine Sargent.
The pawns in a conflict, are assigned roles, and even the King, has limited understanding into his authentic
participation. It used to be said of Kings, that God
only knew the reasons for and the meaning of the struggle, but with gods dead, Kings dead, there remains little leeway to throw evaluation back into
those who precipitate conflict, therefore, a very
astute propaganda machine seven to convince that authority rests with the man, the head of the family, to protect those, who are loved and protected by
him. Man is held responsible to develop his
understanding, out of the sense he can make of his own place in the organization of his family, community, and in this way the question of a
apprehension of his take on the meaning of conflict
usually rests on himself, but usually his father, and his father, the tradition.
The meaning of life is dictated by the traditional view of accepted behavior.
They say this is changing, but as with all forms of change, undercurrents of tradition can quickly reverse the course taken, to the most heavily,
historically vested, and probable course of action.