It seems perfectly clear to me that it would be more horrifying to see women blown apart than men. It is natural to me for a man to more compelled to save the life of an injured or endangered female than to do the same for a fellow male soldier at the risk of the mission. It also seems exponentially less likely for a man to be raped by his captors than a woman.
The insinuation that the soldiers that felt the same as I do on this were chauvinist pigs was sarcasm.
My take on your comment is that the abortionist society the author was referring to has already desensitized you.
The author shows much anger that these women served, and in one case died, with honor. The question is
why he insults their memory in such an unmanly screed.
Is it an expression of hostility towards women due to a pathological mysogyny? Is his emotional over-reaction rooted in a deep seated discomfort with women? Or does he have a hidden envy of women and insecurity arising from his own internal conflict gender confusion, or sublimated homosexual predilictions?
It's hard to tell from the article. All that can be known is that there appears to be some mal-adjustment or deviance behind his callous and unpatriotic diatribe.