Probably but the yanks have to win everything. As soon as we go into Afganistan it will be declared quiet and Nowhere near as bad as it was thanks to The Shadow Warriors or whatevr gay unit they would call themselves!
I agree with Dogface; wether it's the best snipe in the world or not, it's still beyond the capability of most soldiers, whatever Army they serve with.
One can argue about range, type of round, wind conditions etc ad nausium - at the end of the day, it was still a fcuking good shot.
1250 yds in still air is well within the capability of the round, scope and a reasonable shooter - e.g. target shooters routinely use a 1200yd point at Bisley. However, at these longer ranges, accuracy is increasingly at the mercy of small changes in environmental factors - a puff of breeze, or even the sun going behind a cloud and affecting the air temperature - so luck is a significant factor, and this is the point that the SSgt - in all honesty - makes. He'd had hundreds of rounds practice from the same firing point, so would have had his scope point of aim sorted for every range and elevation (ie shooting down to ground level, or up into buildings) in his arc. Whether or not he could hit a man-size target is really down to luck because of those environmental variables. If there had been five guys standing in the windows of that hospital, he'd probably not have been able to hit the others (even allowing for the Iraqi propensity to remain standing still when their mate next to them has just been taken out....).
The publicised "long range shots" usually boil down to a lucky hit out of several attempts - I think in one of the Canadian shots, they had had two previous attempts to hit the individual, before they eventually plugged him. A far greater measure of marksmanship is "repeatability". There is/was a British sniper instructor who, having amazed an audience of senior officers with a head shot on a fig 11 at 900 yds using an L42, went on to repeat the feat several times. That was true marksmanship.