On which does the anathema fall?

"suppose that for some good reason a stranger to our planet comes here and talks to one of us about the condition of this world.  Among the strange things that are recounted to him, he is told that corruption and vices, of which he has been fully informed, in certain circumstances necessitate men dying by the hand of men, and that we restrict the right of killing within the law to the executioner [(bourreau)] and the soldier [(soldat)].  He will also be told:  'The one brings death to convicted and condemned criminals, and fortunately his executions are so rare that one of these ministers of death [(ministres de mort)] is sufficient for each province.  As far as soldiers are concerned, there are never enough of them, because [(car)] they kill without restraint and their victims are always honest men.  Of these two professional killers [(tueurs de profession)], the soldier and the executioner [(exécuteur)], one is highly honored [(fort honoré)] and always has been by all the nations who have inhabited up to now this planet to which you have come; but the other has just as generally been regarded as vile [(infâme)].  Try to guess on which side the obloquy falls [(devinez, je vous prie, sur qui tombe l'anathème?)]."

     The Senator in Joseph de Maistre, The Saint Petersburg dialogues (1821) 7 ("sur la guerre"), The works of Joseph de Maistre, trans. Jack Lively, Minerva series 15 (London:  George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1965), 246 (245-258).  French from the original:  Les soirées de Saint-Pétersbourg, ou Entretiens sur le gouvernement temporel de la providence: suivis d'un traitée sur les sacrifices 7 (vol. 2, pp. 5-6 (1-99)).  Cf. Dialogue 1, on pp. 193 ff.

     Of course, soldiers don't (or aren't supposed to) kill "sans mesure", and those they kill don't fight (or aren't thought to fight) for an "honnêt" cause.  Nonetheless, de Maistre is onto something interesting here (which, however (I'm only guessing), had probably been noticed before).