You've asked several questions. So I'm focusing on this:
Will this kind of personality be protagonist-like?
You are starting this character with several strikes against him.
1. He lied to his partner
The reader might come back from this, but his partner should never trust him again.
2. He lied about his intent.
This one is a real problem. It means he knew it was wrong. This actually shows criminal intent to mislead someone who could report him.
3. He has no regard for innocent lives.
Saving lives is the job. The hostages are the priority. The 'goal' would be that nothing happens and it is all diffused through non-violence. This man is a sociopath, and would be removed from his job.
4. His plan got innocent people killed.
It was a bad plan. Even in the most contrived trolly problem scenario, acting to get hostages killed sooner is a bad plan.
How does the character grow from this?
Sorry, I don't see a believable redemption arc for this character. If he's morally right, why does he need to lie? If he's your protagonist, he's aimed the wrong direction. I'd expect a negative arc where he only gets worse.
It's compounded because you showed us an equally-ranked colleague who disagrees with his plan, so clearly it was not the only option.
He was right all along, but the world can't handle the truth and his partner is a wuss.
With an extremely contrived trolly problem, and heaps of remorse (compassion for the families of his victims), you could bring this character back to "protagonist-like" by showing he was correct all along – he picked the better option in a no-win situation.
But he'd need official exoneration (an inquest that proves x number of lives were saved by killing y number of hostages), and the partner would need to admit he was wrong and just couldn't accept it at the time (justifying the lie that removed him from the hostage crisis).
Who gets sacrificed for the 'greater good'?
Your title asks "is it appreciated to make sacrifices for the greater good?", but getting innocent people killed is not making sacrifices. The hostages do not have a choice. He does.
Getting himself killed to save others is a sacrifice. Losing a loved-one held hostage by the terrorists in order to save others is a sacrifice. This is why we see stories where a moral protagonist offers to become the hostage in exchange for letting others go – heroes sacrifice their own safety to get others out of danger.
Your guy gets innocent people killed just so he can break early for lunch, and deliberately prevents another trained responder from saving even a single civilian. This isn't anti-hero territory. His 'morality' isn't even grey. This is sadistic psychopath territory where he doesn't care who dies, and sabotages good people who might get in his way.