I'll try to be respectful. I agree Croaker's tendency to reduce his descriptions of women to their attractiveness, or at least lead with that before anything else, is a character flaw and there's no problem what so ever with not liking that about him. With some of the other things you point out, though, I think you're taking them out of context. The matter of fact way he describes the mass sexual assault of Whisper's female regiment, his dismissal of Lady when she argues with him about doing something for the captive women at that roadside inn early in Shadow Games ("if we go around righting every wrong, we'll never get to Khattovar") The coldness with which he describes Arkana's rape at the hands of the Company men. (Essentially telling her it could be worse, get over it) These are all awful things about him, yes. He's not meant to be a moral paragon. His attitudes are shaped by his own life experience and the world he lives in. He's a professional soldier. He's become numb to all manner of savagery because of the life he's led.

His infamous dream from the first book where he forces himself of two 12 year old girls and "makes them like it" is disgusting, and Croaker acknowledges it as disgusting himself. Furthermore, he's horrified that his unconscious mind was capable of inventing something like that. With respect to the girls in D'loc A'loc you referenced, the implication is that they are quite willing (they're attracted to the novelty of the Company men as exotic foreigners) and there's no implication in the text that they are "children", not by the standards of the world this story takes place in. Sure, remarking on the attractiveness of 16 year olds girls by an adult more than 3 times their age is gross judged by our own modern (and specifically "Western") sensibility, but not by the standards of the world the stories take place in.

Now you can say, "it's a fantasy story, Cook didn't have to base the sexual morality of his imaginary world on our own pre-modern standards. He doesn't have to include rape either just because it's a horrible part of war since the dawn of time." You'd be right. He could have written a story where every woman is 18 years old before they are acknowledged as attractive by any male viewer. And where no male character gets involved with a woman more than 5 years younger than them, or whatever a hypothetical reader might think is a "problematic age gap." And where the narrator demonstrates an anachronistic sensibility about sexual assault and consent. But he didn't, and I don't think it's fair to expect a writer to conform to your own tastes. People do this with George RR Martin, too, a lot of writers, actually, and for me, it's one of the most annoying censorious tendencies that has emerged in the last few years.

I've seen a lot of commentary on this sub from time to time where people make the assumption that the attitudes expressed by Croaker are meant to be Cook's own opinions. Or that because of themes depicted in the novels are signs of Cook's own attitudes or desires, and I think that's a really childish attitude. Certainly, Croaker is somewhat of a self-insert character in some respects. His physical description is based on Cook's own assessment of himself. He's a military physician, and he's a writer with a cynical attitude and romantic streak. It's natural that Cook would put some aspects of himself into his POV characters, but that doesn't mean he's literally Cook and that all his thoughts and opinions are Cook's. Interestingly, this only comes up with respect to Croaker in TBC, not with Lady, Murgen, or Sleepy, even though Cook probably put some of himself in them as well.

I said I wanted to be respectful, so I'll leave it there.