You still don't understand the definition and concept of murder. It requires the intent to kill that person. Your notion that definitions can differ is fine, but how about showing me some evidence to back up your claim that other jurisdictions do consider it as such, specifically in that jurisdiction.
You posted some casualty numbers. Do you have the breakdown for which side was the perpetrator? Also, I don't think the numbers from Vietnam are relevant considering the vastly different technologies and ROE of today. How do you feel about civilian casualties in WW2? Should we have let Hitler do his thing? Here are some numbers that show a low percentage caused by coalition forces (12% and I believe the violent deaths were about 200k).
https://ofbuckleyandbeatles.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/study-c...
"Calling a soldier a murderer is never even a fractal as insensitive as committing the violence in the first place."
Here you are wrongly assuming the person committed any violence at all... even after I explained that earlier. This and the lack of factual support for your position makes it seem you are just trolling.