First, Dulce et Decorum Est is one of the most powerful poems ever written, and in fact changed the practice of poetry forever. Prior to Owen writing it, the poetry of war was a kind of flowery panegyric, a patriotism driven and idealistic call to battle. No one had ever let the average reader in on the horrors of war, and the realization of what an actual mustard gas attack wreaked on soldiers might not have stopped chemical warfare, but it stirred anti-war sentiment and led to the work of many others who sought to depict its horrors and give voice to those who are against the endless wars we wage. Look to Sam Hammill's Poets Against the War, a book he put together and edited after he and a host of other poets turned down Laura Bush's invitation to the White House during the Iraq War. It's an outstanding legacy.
As to your work, only you can say whether it should be published or given light and air. Delicacy is not a requirement. Charles Bukowski can curl your nose hairs and he is a great poet. There are certainly questions: will it harm someone? Will it specifically cause another human being pain, shame, fear, etc., not through association but by being about them? Then I come down on the side of either changing it to disguise that or burying it. But if you're afraid your subject matter is too rough, then you suffer from what many poets suffer from. The real question is, is it good poetry? A good poet can make the most dreadful subject matter resound, create an aesthetic sense that elevates it above simple confession or rage. Only you know if you have done the work to do that.
And btw, one rejection does not a bad poem make. Trust me on that one.
= new reply since forum marked as read
