There is only one way to change your view: you must decouple government policy from the troops who fight for it. If you cannot do that, you cannot and will not ever change your view. So wrestle with whether you're capable of doing this: if you are not, then your view cannot be changed and this discussion is objectively over.

You have decided that troops should be held to the standards of the war they are fighting in. That is, you argue that we should respect troops only as much as we respect the war. You are tying the two inextricably together.

I argue you are wrong to do that. If scientists make a brand new discovery tomorrow that fundamentally changes our entire understanding of the universe (for example, if someone proved definitively that particles can in fact travel faster than light), I do not then go to my astronomy teacher and disrespect her for teaching false information. She is a teacher: she teaches what we know and what the community believes.

Who are you to say that a soldier is any different? You subscribe to a classic problem that I believe even most political scientists suffer from: you assume everyone must be acting on well-defined preferences, fully rational of everything. Therefore, you reason, since the War in Iraq does not benefit the masses, it must benefit the elites and it's a big conspiracy so the elites can continue to masturbate with $100 bills (i'm exaggerating). Moreover, you also reason that troops must know that these wars do not benefit the public, and therefore they must be held to the standard of acting irrationally.

But here's a crazy thought for you. What if the same uncertainty that plagues scientists at the very fringes of knowledge also plagues politicians at the fringes of knowledge? What if policymakers are actually doing what they think is best for the country because that's what the bounds of their knowledge tells them? What if soldiers, like that great college teacher I had, are conduits for the current iteration of our best foreign policy ideas in a horribly uncertain world?

I implore you to separate the troops from the policy, and I implore you to separate your interpretation of the policy to what you think must be true of the policymakers. Don't blame the teachers for teaching what they've been told is our best knowledge to date, and don't blame soldiers for performing what they've been told is the best knowledge to date.

The reason your Wall Street analogy falls apart quickly is because no one can argue that investment and financial speculation is absolutely essential for a society's safe existence. So it's fair for someone to genuinely believe that the institution itself is unnecessary and has more downsides than good. We cannot say that about the military any more than we can say that about education: I don't disrespect the troops in the same way I don't disrespect teachers, because while they may often be conduits for the pursuit of incorrect goals, they are fundamentally necessary as institutions and there is honor in and of itself to those professions.

So, after that meandering response, here's my simple answer: to change your view, stop holding soldiers to the standards that you hold policymakers. If the scientific community is fucking stupid and decides one day that they will never, ever accept clear evidence that they are wrong, then you blame the scientists, not the teachers who have to teach the current state of knowledge because they're not in a position to generate new knowledge. You don't blame the soldier for the policymaker's mistakes, you blame the policymaker for being fucking stupid and not realizing how dumb their decisions are when the evidence is right in front of them.

One more thing.

I do believe there is a conversation to be had about the Little Eichmanns theory. You might argue that individuals who are conduits for evil are still liable for that evil. But as I've been saying, its on you to prove that it's evil. That's a difficult standard to meet, in my opinion. You need to show that it's not misguided policy (Political Scientists, I think, are the ones to blame for propagating this absurd notion of "Democratic Peace" as some kind of ironclad law when nothing Political Scientists do, in my view, meets the standards of scientific law), and you need to show that the troops should be aware that the policy is not just controversial but truly evil. Your view is that just because you disagree with the war, you can project that on the troops: my argument is that unless you can show with certainty that the war is objectively evil, your beef is with the policymakers who are acting with false certainty, rather than with the troops who have just as little information as you do, but have a job to do that we otherwise value in society.