Quote Originally Posted by Featherock View Post
There's no "thinking" about it. The facts are the facts. What he did was against the law, pure and simple...
Except we do not know all the facts, ergo some thinking is justified until such point as those fact are pretty conclusive. Thus far we have only reports that appear to be conclusive.
... the fact is all soldiers and contractors operating in a combat zone have to operate under the law, regardless of what the enemy does.
I haven't seen anyone here arguing that point. The issue raised is that of a human reaction to a provocation in a war like environment. One can say that flawed reactions, types of provocation and the wartime environment are not excuses for a criminal act and that may be correct legally and even philosophically in the eyes of many but without greater knowledge of all the factors; all are just speculating. In such speculations, some will lean toward the rule of law; others toward the emotional quotient of the case at hand. No one is wrong.
Does it hurt our COIN efforts? I would say yes. This specific incident? I don't know. This incident paired with other incidents like it (PMCs firing on civilians in Iraq, the Gitmo disaster) have a incredibly deleterious effect on COIN efforts and America's standing in the world.
I don't think your last sentence is correct. Change it to add "in the eyes of some." after 'world' and I think its more nearly correct. Those things may be trumpeted by anti-war types and nominal opponents or anti-US / anti-Bush types but the vast majority of the world doesn't really care.

Note that the 'PMCs in Iraq firing on civilians' factor is not one whit more deleterious than is or was such firing by US troops or by Iraqi forces other than in the eyes of many in the media and academe. Gitmo as disaster is an interesting trope. I can hardly wait to see how the new administration mitigates that 'disaster.'