Most importantly, the killing of wounded enemies or even of civilians does not undermine the moral validity of a war. If war is justified, then civilian casualties are justified, because they are an inevitable part of war. And war is justified on the same principles that any other use of force is justified -- as an act of self-defense, and the defense of innocent third parties. Our engagement with Iraq was an act of self-defense and the defense of innocent Iraqis oppressed by Saddam Hussein. Our current engagement is an act of self-defense against the terrorist cohorts now occupying Iraq. The fact that we avoid civilian casualties, as we do, simply adds to the fact that we are right in the war, even when extremely upsetting incidents like this occur. So even assuming the worst about this incident, it does not undermine the rightness of our involvement in Iraq.A few minor questions about this EXCELLENT LIBERTARIAN defense of murder:
U.S. engagement was an act of self-defense? When did Saddam initiate attacks on the U.S.?
Why should I (or the half of America opposed to the Iraq debacle) be coerced into funding the defense of Iraqis against Saddam (a man once supported by the same people now calling him an "enemy")?
Isn't Saddam contained? Why is the U.S. military still "defending" Iraqis?
If I rob your house and kill your sister, do you get to chase me into the nearest residenital development and slaughter a few innoncent bystanders in your quest to bring me to justice? Is that justified?
Why did the U.S. oppress the Iraqi people for a decade with economic sanctions if the U.S. is to now set them free? Except for the 15,000+ dead ones -- they are just the price of freedom.
You can say many things about the Iraq war, but "justified" is not one of them.
You can say many things about killing when it's done in the name of the State, but it's still murder.