Every war is arguably avoidable - but that doesn't mean that each side had an equal say in getting involved.
Japan was the instigator behind the Sino-Japanese war of 1937-1945 fro example. It was Jaopan's choice to start that war. China had the choice of dedfending itself, or of being over-run by thr Japanese who coveted their resources and land. That was therefore a political war caused by the Japanese and forced upon the Chinese. You can't fault the Chiense government for choosing to defend its people and territory from naked aggression, and therefore their decision to go to war. You can, however, fault Imperial Japan for yet again starting a war unecessarily.
Likeiwse - the US and Britain must carry the blame for the invasion of Iraq. It was conducted for political pruposes under false pretenses, they'd been warned in advance that their ostensible grounds were unfounded and that they'd only make things worse, and the turn of events has shown all that to be the case. You can blame Sada Hussein for many things, but sending his troops to fight the invasion is not one of them.
So whilst death and ionjury is an occupational hazard that soldiers accept may befall them, the covenant with governments that soldiers have is that they won't be placed in such danger unnecessarily. Starting wars for narrow political reasons is an example of that covennat being broken. Defending your nation from attack is not. So whilst every war is avoidable for the aggressor(s), it is not for those who are the subject of that aggression.
Bookmarks