That was precisely my question.
It is one thing to say, that you are a pacifist, but would help the wounded, in the war zone, or at home.
It is another to claim, (and I have heard this, in my youth), that “nursing the sick and injured is freeing up someone else to kill people”–as though, somehow, the wounded could be used as a political pawn.
I am

no nurse, by the way; I am only a woman who came of age during the Vietnam War, and was not about to watch my school friends come home injured, and develop life-threatening complications because no one else would change dressings, and debrade exit wounds.
It is not pretty. If there were a crusade, there would be need of strong stomachs & brave hearts, to both get the wounded to a place of safety, and to care for them.
In World Wars 1 & 2, there were a good many COs who served as ambulance drivers, medics, nurses, &aiding chaplains. Somewhere in the intervening years, the concept changed.More & more, pacifism has come to mean:crying: “let enough people die, & the war will be over sooner”. :nope: :nope: Not so; it means an opportunity for the faint of heart to talk much, whilst doing little, except:banghead: keep a scorecard on the day’s casualties.