It is strange and unexpected that Druse is a "criminal" for sleeping but a good soldier for killing his father because of the inherent irony of war; moral obligations are overruled by tactical ploys. His sleeping during duty manifests, in a military sense, a disadvantageous lack of discipline and responsibility in men, and is thus not preferable. His assassination of his father represents, however, that some measures must be taken to raise the morale of this man, and also speaks of the soldier's own personal obedience to his or her country or cause. That Druse has fulfilled his cause, regardless of moral implications, is beneficial from a military standpoint, but that he was asleep is very detrimental from a military standpoint. Ethicality is only a concept embedded into the occurrence by our own regular experience, but has no meaning on the battlefield, which is why we find this to be so strange and unnatural.
4. It is my opinion that Forster would consider Druse a flagrant traitor to humanity (not humanity in the sense of "the entire human race," but rather in the sense of "the human spirit and essence"). As I have before heard Forster's words and have pondered them before, I believe that Forster would view Druse as a man who has allowed himself to be fed his priorities by those ranked superior to him, rather than bringing it upon himself to judge his own existence and formulate ideals on his own. Forster would probably decide that either Druse has no affection towards his father, or Druse has put forth nationalism and patriotism over his own humanism, thereby rejecting his own sentient emotionality and submitting social relations to "philanthropy," what Forster would most likely consider to be an empty word concerning the success of some political entity or reformation. Whether Forster would be presumptuous or justified in assuming so, in my opinion, is only up to the thoughts of Bierce himself.