In ttwo thousand years of Christianity there had never been a teaching that gave any support at all to the idea that the end of a war justified the means to it; the very idea would remove any concept of a war crime for the simple reason that your way of thinking could always be invoked in the defense of the accused.
The Rape of Nanking? "We just wanted to end this."
The Blitz? "We were trying to end the war."
My Lai? "We wanted to end the war. And if the generals who pushed for the incineration of civilians could use this in their defense, we will certainly use it in Lt. Calley's'."
Go back through the Geneva Conventions, go back to Aquinas, and go back to Augustine. (Go as far back as you need to.). Find any teaching that gave anyone approval to commit murder if they did so with the intent of ending the fighting.
“My authority isn’t my own; it rests on the authority of two millennia of Christianity...(Go as far back as you need to.). Find any teaching that gave anyone approval to commit murder if they did so with the intent of ending the fighting.” [Captain Walker, post 147]
If the authority isn’t your own, it’s more a little curious, as it always manages to assist you in coming out of the game on top. And - marvel of marvels - it’s never around to be questioned.
It’s them or us.
If we meekly obey that lengthy list of dogmatists you’ve cited, there is only one possible result: we lose. If that outcome satisfies your moral sensibilities, I’d say you are more of a hindrance than a help.