Animals in War 487 success with his dogs had less to with study than with his singular and natural understanding of the animals He was convinced that dogs were sentient, feeling beings able to reason and act with a set of rudimentary morals Frankel goes on, ‘Richardson’s breakthrough achievement [ ] was to place the psychology and morality of the animal at the center of his training method’ (2014, p 93) These ideas are familiar to contemporary animal scholars—the notion that centering an inquiry upon an animal yields important results; the idea that animals can reason and act morally This last point, for instance, is demonstrated and defended by biologist Marc Bekoff and philosopher Jessica Pierce in their book Wild justice (2009) A thoughtful, sensitive, well-informed person like Richardson, then, dramatizes the paradox of animals in war His gentle training methods and his serious regard for dogs helped win them a place in the brutal and destructive enterprise of human war Love, in that sense, even sincere love, can amount to a kind of abuse Human love for dogs can therefore be a heavy burden, a strange form of harm, something that is also true of the history of horses and other animals in war This reality is exemplified by the famous participant in World War II, Chips Chips was a mixed-breed dog who was awarded a Purple Heart and Silver Star, only to have them revoked because it was decided that dogs should not receive awards intended for people (Lemish 1996, p 76) Lemish reports that, by the time the dog’s fame had grown, Chips ‘began to grow weary and skittish from constant artillery shellfire’ (1996) His notoriety led him to demonstrate that battle fatigue in a notable event: meeting General Eisenhower Lemish writes that when Eisenhower ‘innocently tried to pet him—Chips promptly nipped the general’s hand’ (1996, p 76) This should not surprise us today Military dog specialists have increasingly recognized that individuals like Chips can develop post-traumatic stress disorder, much as humans (Perry 2012; Alger and Alger 2013, pp 96–97) Further, when the war had concluded and Chips was sent back to the U.S., it became clear that the ‘toll of war wore heavily on the dog’: He survived only a few months before his heart stopped, ‘with his kidneys already failing’ (Lemish 1996, p 78) The story of Chips reiterates some of the problems with designating animal abuse in war From one perspective, and in light of what we now know about his life’s trajectory—increasing war stress that impacted his behavior, his health, and ultimately his longevity—Chips’s participation in the war amounts to abuse However, he is celebrated in texts, and was celebrated at the time, for his apparently eager, seemingly natural participation in war activities right from the start One story exists in a number of