What he stated has some merit but the part you bolded as being correct doesn't. Morality is arbitrary so one can accurately say that war may be morality "type-x superseding morality "type y." But even that doesn't hold in all cases. "It is our duty to eradicate those who may do us harm" can be part of a moral code. So can "every adult has the responsibility to pursue and engage in warfare." So the idea the "war is the suppression of morality- period" is false. Star Trek did an excellent job of illustrating different conceptions of morality
If you have read my original post, you remember that I advocated the position that our empathic and compassionate traits are not just result of social conditioning; they have an unconditional - I might even say primordal - nature. Most of the times this basic core is supressed by, warped by, or even completely confused with the arbitrary set of rules of this or that particular society. Such rule-sets may be completely different, and may include approval (sometimes even glorification) of warfare, torture, opression, discrimination - of everything definitely non-compassionate and non-emphatic.
Whether I'm right or wrong this "primordal compassion" notion, is a debatable issue, of course. But the diversified and mutually contradictory nature of the many moral codes we have is not a decisive argument against it - my own view started with the acceptance of multiplity of "moralities". But, as NDE and STE after-effects show, people who lived through them tend to become more emphatic and less obedient regardless of their original moral position.