I'm trying to figure out the issue here, since games that allow players to assume the identity of former enemies of US military conflicts abound.  It's no big deal to play as a Nazi soldier fighting against US forces set in the period of World War II.  I'm unclear as to why those games are permissible, but playing as the Taliban is not.  

Why not an across the board ban on any multiplayer game allowing players to assume the identity of any force hostile to the US? Could be tricky, considering how our enemies and allies have shifted over time.  But at least an across the board ban would be consistent.  Options might include no longer utilizing US military forces in video games - that way there's no insult to anyone.  Other options would include making all enemy forces generic, unnamed entities that might fight from a recognizable geographic area but not be called Taliban or Nazis or Soviets.   

All of which begs the question - what is the actual offense?  Is the offense utilizing a current enemy of the US as an assumable identity in a video game?  Why is this a problem?  Is there a concern that this will be a form of recruitment or building sympathy to forces currently fighting against the US in one way or another?  If that's the case, should the ban extend to preventing players from assuming the identity of any military hostile to the United States whether we are in actual conflict or not?  Would it be consistent to prevent players from assuming the role of, say, a North Korean force?  How about China?  Cuba?  

This would seem to be more reasonable if the concern were hostility towards the US expressed in military terms.  But it brings up a whole new host of ideological puzzlers.  There is a proposed current solution of setting aside part of the profits to benefit veterans.  Huh?  Why?  Is it an insult or a national security risk that can be mitigated by a few bucks in a fund?  Is the idea that nobody should be profiting by creating the opportunity to virtually kill virtual US service personnel?    

How does freedom of speech factor into this?  If splinter religious groups are allowed to protest during the funeral services of US service personnel, how is this game not protected?  Isn't free speech part of the reason our troops are fighting in the first place?  To protect the basic rights that we all take for granted?   

I don't think this sort of pressure makes sense - certainly not in the haphazard way it is being applied.  While I find games that allow me to play as an enemy of my country to be of questionable taste, I'm reluctant to see this sort of pressure being applied as it sets precedents for further restrictions.  What about the quote popularly attributed to Voltaire, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'?  If it's disrespectful to play a video game in a certain manner, what about public protests against military actions?  What about the ability to write an essay critical of the US military in some respect?  When we begin to set up sacred cows that free speech can't cover, we begin the process of eliminating free speech.