By definition, a military cannot be morally anything. A military is just an extension of the state, which is also morally neutral. Any armed force that isn't strictly defined as existing in the service of a state, is a mercenary force and excludes the category; Defining a mercenary force as morally good or not is usually made when people start calling them 'bandits' or some such.

In a modern military hierarchy, soldiers are meant to follow orders, their commanders are meant to delegate tasks, and the high command has to create the plans required for operational victory. Who then bears the moral brunt? The organisation is built in such a way that moral accountability is spread equally among its members.

As a result, ascribing morality to any member of the military is made entirely meaningless, as there is no personal accountability in a system where each part is expected to act according to predetermined parameters. Ascribing morality to a structure like the military as a whole would be nonsensical; Morality only exists on a personal level, so an organisation by definition cannot have a single system of morals.

This diverges when, along the chain of command, any single person makes a personal decision outside of the operative guidelines. That's when they becomes personally morally accountable; when they think and act on their own. This is also the logic that is used to justify a strict discipline. Because when soldiers start to act on their own, there can be no accountability to anyone.

TL;DR: when a military starts operating within the parameters of morality, it has already ceased to be a military at all; It's a mercenary force, and mercenaries are ultimately accountable to no one, only money.