Moshe recalls the journey the people made past hostile neighbors and their wars against Sichon and Og who attacked them. Between describing these episodes of comparative peace and war Moshe says, "And it was when all the people of war had died out of the nation" (Devarim 2:16). This refers to the generation that left Egypt, those who had originally refused to enter the land on account of the rebellious speeches that the spies made. When that whole generation had passed away, the people moved into the areas of hostility, where they would be forced into conflict. Why did Moshe refer to the people that died as people of war? They had barely fought; most of the fighting was to take place immediately after their death! If anything, they could have been branded cowards, because of their lack of trust in God, and resulting refusal to enter the land.
Rashi explains this term to refer to the fact that the generation that died was defined as those between the ages of twenty and sixty: people who are eligible to be drafted into the army (hayotzim batzava). But then, why were they called "people of war", and not people of the army? The Chizkuni explains that they were given this name because they had shown their tendency to battle in their refusal to accept the decree that they would die in the desert, and their resultant unsuccessful attempt to break into the land. This battle, which was lost, was explicitly against God's command. However, it is still peculiar that this should make Moshe consider them people of war. Their children would have to fight all the nations in the land. It is hard to understand why in comparison they should be the one's to be branded thus.
We cannot ignore the paradoxical aspect of this phrase's appearance in this context. Moshe tells us here that even the wars fought on the eastern bank of the Jordan River were fought only when "the people of war had died." Moshe is intentionally speaking in a paradoxical manner. His terminology is purposely directed to teach us a moral: What makes people "people of war" is not whether they fight battles, but rather, their attitude and character. The question is not what you do in reality; often people are forced into conflict against their will. One must ask whether a person's attitude is one of conflict or peace. If a person is antagonistic and prone to hostility, he should not be the one to fight; he may fight more than was required, or become cruel.
The generation of the Exodus easily became agitated, and repetitively found itself in conflict: complaining, refusing and rebelling. The fact that they fought an unsuccessful battle against God's orders is the proof of their tendency for conflict and war. An agitated and rebellious nature does not contradict a cowardly refusal to fight. On the contrary, a combative and aggressive character is likely to be eager to fight without divine consent, but rebel when commanded to trust in God and march forward. Moshe tells us that they could advance and fight the wars that they had to fight only because the "people of war", those who had behaved in a hostile and aggressive manner, had passed away. The people must know that a warring nature is incompatible with the mission at hand. And they should also understand that fighting wars is not what makes people "people of war", but rather their characters, and attitude to aggression.
Courtesy of Yeshivat Har Etzion - www.etzion.org.il