Does it make it any more or less either justified or pointless?
Short answer: No.
Combat is confusing, employing deadly force is always risky for anyone in the area, and none of this has any direct bearing on the military action one way or the other. After all, it has no bearing on how justified the military action in Afghanistan is, nor this ranger's reasons for being there. Nonetheless, news that former NFL player Pat Tillman was likely killed by "friendly fire" is worth noting, IMHO.
The actions in Afghanistan certainly had a basis in (inter-)national security concerns (unlike the moves in Iraq), though I continue to be worried by how so many people use "Taliban" and "al-Qaida" as virtually interchangeable terms. The former is a home-grown (for Afghanistan) group of self-appointed religious police attempting to bring their country under their interpretation of the Quran (almost amusingly, a great many of them cannot even read, and so accept what a few extremist leaders have decided is Allah's message), while al-Qaida is an international Islamic terrorist organization. The Taliban made themselves targets because they allowed al-Qaida bases in their country, partially because the two groups didn't conflict ideologically, partially because al-Qaida money helped the Taliban efforts, including getting them well-established as a government, but largely because Osama bin Laden was and is considered a hero by Afghans because of his playing a hands-on part in the long, long battle against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s -- another reminder of how (like Saddam) the Reagan-era U.S. backed the efforts of people we've since gone after militarily.
Meanwhile, we have forces in these theaters of operations working with government and military forces from Pakistan, a country which, unlike Afghanistan or Iraq, not only has nuclear weapons but has been directly responsible for trafficking in that technology around the world, including the darling regime in North Korea. That Pakistan had high-ranking military officers in Afghanistan, working with the Taliban and Al-Qaida as advisors, is also something that's been kept away from the center of attention because, well, it wouldn't be convenient.
The world's a canvas painted in shades of gray that darken and brighten with subtle tricks of the light. It's essential to remember that.
Meanwhile, back in Iran, it's worth noting that Thursday's opening of the post-election parliament found the newly-revivified conservative hardliners leading a chant of "Death to America." Religious fundamentalism and governance is a bad mix, and I wonder if mankind will ever learn that lesson in a lasting way? Probably not. People ultimately need to be burned in order to learn a healthy fear of fire.
I wish Iranian President Mohammad Khatami and his fellow reformers all the best in getting this situation under control. I know that the great mass of Iranian youth is in favor of cultural modernization, and hopefully they'll be able to pull together enough of a political force to get rid of the "Guardian Council," a group that passes judgement on who can and can't run for office.
Comments