I was in Iraq when this happened. It is a fairly representative incident -- the only remarkable thing is that Reuters people were involved. There have been plenty of within-rules shootings which led to the deaths of civilians, but there were also plenty of situations where the rules hindered successful operations or even self-defense. It's a balancing act, and it's war, so it's choosing among least-bad options, with imperfect information.

It's fair to criticize the Rules of Engagement as being overly hostile to civilians, and counter to the goal of winning and leaving. In Afghanistan, GEN McChrystal actually stopped a lot of effective tactics (night raids, airstikes, etc.) because they were counter to the strategy of winning the war by winning the populace. In Iraq, there were periods of intense kinetic violence (such as going into Baquba, Sadr city, Fallujah) combined with periods of reconstruction and trying to win the populace.

I actually knew Julian Assange from running a remailer long before wikileaks, and he seemed like a pretty decent guy. I'm not sure what happened. I'm betting he/they felt marginalized and were trying to use this to raise their own profile. I support the general idea of transparency through third parties publishing information, but I can't support wikileaks.