Perhaps. I recognize war as something that is inevitable. No matter how much I oppose it, people will fight one another on a grand scale (which doesn't mean I wouldn't actively oppose a war I consider unjust). As such I expect that when they engage in combat, when they claim to fight for 'me', to fight a 'just' war, that they adhere to certain standards. I expect people, not just individual soldiers but government officials as well, to be held accountable for their actions, even in wartime. By standards of decency I mean something that is ENFORCED. I'm not really talking about war as if it were a chess match, with neat and tidy rules that no one deviates from, I'm talking about accountability, that the atrocities that occur are treated as the abhorrent actions they are, not as a natural (and thus defensible) consequence of war.
Unfortunately my expectations are not often met. Those responsible for much pain and suffering avoid any sort of consequence (and if they're really lucky they may go on to win a Nobel Peace prize! Woo.) but I still have an expectation that the majority of soldiers will behave as the moral individuals I believe most people to be. I don't think that's ignoring or downplaying the horrific nature of war. I don't feel it dampens my general anti-war sentiments, especially as I realize most people who commit atrocities in wartime are individuals who, in a normal setting, would likely be completely average. It's partially that horrible truth, and the fact that people often aren't held to any standard, that leads me to believe that war is rarely defensible.
Though I think we're basically on the same 'War is Hell and makes men monsters' page.