Oooh, fun! I haven't played with sarcasm in awhile!
(Actually, it would be fun to straight-man this, and point out what I see as evil/not, etc.)

Who said the elves were not themselves evil? This is the same as hating "monsters" because they have evil alignments. Who else hates evil? Good does!
Fighting in a war isn't necessarily evil, unless he joined the army with the promise of slaughter and booty. It isn't generally good, either, unless you're going out to defend an area from an invading force. Most wars involve drafting neutral parties to fight agressive forces, resulting in a roughly neutral outlook unless the individual makes an effort to be good/evil at the time.

Hating elves is right next to hating sparkling vampires in the "almost good" category, so you might have a point.

The ends might well justify the means here. Who is the war against? Are these peasants evil? Perhaps they are. Perhaps they are only working those fields as slaves to their evil landlords. Remember that D&D is a pseudo-medieval world, and the feudal system was very poor to those serfs. By burning the crops he is inciting the peasants to rise up against their (evil) lords when the latter come to take their tribute. (At worst, if he were a Paladin, he'd have to atone.)
Rasing a field isn't quite like butchering random passerbys. Cutting off resources is a common way to fight a war. At worst, it's chaotic for overburning the fields. At best, it's lawful for following the general's orders, and the general sent him off because he was good at it.

Without further information, I'd have to assume he falls in the "overdoing it" category and is chaotic.

Which is good? Holding a job and doing it without complaint, or having a job and never doing it? As long as this enemy is evil, seems like a good act to me.
Holding a job is socially proper but not quite what D&D alignment means by "good." Holding a job would be a lawful trait, though.

What does he want to do with the personal wealth and fame? There is nothing to indicate that he is stealing from good or even neutral people, for one, and perhaps he wants to use the wealth and fame to set up a charity.
Putting yourself (or your family, or the people in your town) over the welfare of others is decidely not good. Neutral at best, closer to evil. It would probably be good if he purposefully was raiding evil encampments, but I'm not hearing anything of the sort.

Possibly good. At least, not evil. Then again evil can love too.
So he's a lover, not a fighter (at home).

How do we know that this has hurt the wife? Perhaps she is fine with it. Perhaps this thing is common in his culture. Isn't it kind of arbitrary of us to define monogamy as good and polygamy as evil? I see this as non-evil, neutral at best. Good if his culture encourages him to have lots of children.
I haven't heard of many people enjoying being cheated on. At best, the word "cheated" indicates that he shouldn't have done so. If he is polygamistic, then seeing another woman (or his other wife) wouldn't be considered cheating. This indicates that he is impulsive (chaotic).

And so, we have a character who is chaotic, and mostly neutral with a taste of evil. I'd call him CN-evil-curious.

(And if anyone thinks I'm serious, I also would like to add that I advocate eating the children as a cure for the famine.)
They certainly taste good sauteed in butter, I will give you that.