That wasn't really my point, though. My point was that the fact that some men start wars does not magically turn the rest of the men into war-starters themselves, nor does it protect them from being victims of wars. Many are victimized by their own side as they're forced into the middle of wars they didn't start - they were born men and are therefore considered the appropriate gender for soldiering, whether they want to or not.
Now, I am well aware that wars are usually started by men. We don't even have to delve into which sex is more warfare-prone on average to establish that more men than women have war-starting opportunities. After all, most countries do have men at the top.
However, men aren't the Borg Collective any more than women are, and man 1 is not automatically complicit in the actions of man 2 just because they're both men. And that is true whether or not any women have started wars. (I did say "even if"!)
Anyway, how about some British queen or other? I am, admittedly, not a historian and would rather not spend hours reading up on the details surrounding the conflicts Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, Cleopatra, Margaret Thatcher, Margaret of Anjou, Matilda of Tuscany, Artemisia I of Caria, Indira Gandhi and so on were involved in. Many female rulers had some part in wars, and it's not immediately clear to me how reactive/defensive or aggressive these parts were. Elizabeth I seems like a possible candidate.
Since women are of the same species as men, I doubt they're somehow innately incapable of starting wars - even if I, too, tend to associate physical aggression, territorialism, conquest etc. with men rather than women. And of course men's suffering does not mean women can't or don't suffer in wars. It's not that having to flee or fend for yourself without the support of your killed male relatives isn't bad - that's what Clinton seemed to be talking about. But I'd still say that in those cases it's the killed male relatives who are the primary victims, and she seems to be downplaying their deaths.