Explain Bierce's views of the war in "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge." How does he feel about it?

Ambrose Bierce seems to feel that all war is wasteful, unnecessary, and brutal.  His narrator's subtle judgment of Peyton Farquhar's assent "to at least a part of the frankly villainous dictum that all is fair in love and war" lets us know that he, perhaps, feels that such a belief is savage.  To believe that all is fair in war is to believe that people can behave in absolutely unconscionable ways, as long as there...

Ambrose Bierce seems to feel that all war is wasteful, unnecessary, and brutal.  His narrator's subtle judgment of Peyton Farquhar's assent "to at least a part of the frankly villainous dictum that all is fair in love and war" lets us know that he, perhaps, feels that such a belief is savage.  To believe that all is fair in war is to believe that people can behave in absolutely unconscionable ways, as long as there is a war on to justify their actions.  Something that might be considered dishonorable when there is no war being fought can seem somehow justified during a war, and this, to him (or to his narrator, at least) seems villainous.  

However, this judgment doesn't apply, in isolation, to Peyton Farquhar but to anyone who would adopt such a position.  Although Farquhar would seem, especially to a 21st-century reader, to be on the "wrong side" of the war -- he's a plantation- and slave-owner, one who supports the idea that the South should secede from the Union -- Bierce does not appear to judge him for this.  Instead, Bierce judges him for what damage he is willing to inflict on others as a result of his belief that "all is fair in [...] war."  This leads me to believe that Bierce is less interested in pointing fingers about who is most responsible for the war and instead blaming anyone who supports war (or at least the dishonorable tactics we use against one another in war), as a method of problem solving at all.