Well, it would be incongruent to do that, yes, but I don't ask them or pay them or celebrate them.
I expect the soldiers in the video are just doing what a lot of people would do in the same situation. That might make their behavior in some sense "normal", but it doesn't make it OK, or beyond reasonable criticism.
Most of what you're saying could equally well be applied to (e.g.) criticism of suicide bombers. It may well be the case that suicide bombers are not, as a rule, unusually evil people. If you have the relevant life experiences, you might even have a sense that you'd do the same thing if you were in their position -- in the same way that it's easy for an American to feel some sympathy for the soldiers in this video. Nonetheless, the actions of suicide bombers are unambiguously wrong, and are rightly subject to criticism.
(Of course, I'm not attempting to equate the soldiers' actions with suicide bombing, it's just an analogy.)
They are reacting as they have been trained to react; war is hell, the army build in defense mechanisms like this to ensure soldiers can fight (emotional detachment, jock attitude), they also ingrain absolute discipline to try and avoid scenario's exactly like this.
EDIT: supporting evidence - read some military training manuals. They basically detail the attitude training attempts to instill in a soldier. shrug this is common to pretty much every standing army in the history of ever :) (emotional detachment especially)
This is an example of what I meant by going off the rails. You're extrapolating way beyond anything I said, implied, or thought. Premature generalization is the root of all... something.
In other words, I'm asking for you to be consistent in applying your principles across different situations. If you don't extrapolate, you'll never know whether or not you have double standards. And it's really easy to have double standards when considering the acts of your fellow countrymen vs. those of people who you don't like.
That being said, it is naive to unleash violence and not expect it to spill over. So I guess in the case of war rape I would say that while it's not prissy to be outraged by it, it is to be surprised.
As a side note, I've never been comfortable with these kinds of arguments that go too far beyond the immediate context. A context grounds a problem; it gives you a real situation to refer back to and prevent going off the rails. The more purely abstract these things become, the more arbitrary they get. I don't trust disembodied reason. But that is a complete tangent; sorry!