So really, we're all murderers for not helping them to murder more carefully? No.
I would love to have an honest, thoughtful discussion about how a war can be prosecuted between two powers with minimal civilian harm, but it's not possible when people aren't even honest about what constitutes murder and what doesn't.
Some people feel even stronger than I do and would prefer to avoid being involved in killing even an enemy combatant.
Discussing 1-how to limit civilian casualties during an otherwise legitimate conflict between two nations is one thing, 2-whether those civilian casualties constitute murder (and 3-by whom) is something else. But through pretty much all of human history, nearly all people have recognized a difference between killing during a war, including innocent civilian deaths, and intentional murder. If you want to discuss #1 you had probably agree on #2 first, don't you think?
Many of us, including many intelligent people, think that all such premeditated killing is objectively murder regardless of the political context.
Please don't handwave this fact away.
From your post, I think you’re starting from the pov that governments have the right to decide what is murder vs an acceptable killing. Some of the people I’ve met who are most interested in these ideas are staunch pacifists with a strong religious motivation (e.g. Quaker or Methodist) and reject the idea that governments can declare any killing to be acceptable. I don’t believe they’re dishonest, for all that it’s a very different starting point.