I've posted the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan several times in the past. One more once.

The notion that warfare is caused by biological or "male aggression" becomes ludicrous upon viewing this scene. One suspects that evolutionary psychological theories of warfare are fraudulent.

There is no empirical data supporting the view that warfare is caused by "male aggression" (the theory seems to have evolved out of speculative views of what human beings may have been like--how they behaved--10,000 years ago).

The scene conveyed in Saving Private Ryan (authorities according to military authorities) shows what is actually the case: the young men depicted in this scene are not there based on some "desire" (biological or psychological) of their own.

They are there at the behest of General Eisenhower in the name of their country. 

What can one say about those who persist in the theory of warfare as the expression of biology or male aggression in the face of scenes like this?

One suspects something very dark. It's almost as if the theory is used to justify the slaughter or young men; to allow us to turn away from the knowledge that our society is sending young men to die. The "theory" is a defense against guilt; functions to alleviate our guilt. 

What seems to be being posited--on the deepest level--is that young men are slaughtered in battle because of their "evil" natures. 

How fatuous and disingenuous to build a "theory" around this idea. To pretend that pathetic young men, placed in a hopeless, desperate situation, are fighting for the opportunity to "discharge their aggressive drive." 

Richard Koenigsberg