The Hurt Locker quite deliberately doesn't say anything about Iraq and nor is it particularly about Iraq. Iraq just happens to be the setting as a recent conflict.
The Hurt Locker is exclusively about men in combat, and in particular how some become almost addicted to being in a combat situation - something now recognised as true and in fact the subject of two recent books - while others just want to get through it alive.
I'd say it's a practicaly perfect film and works all the better for not even trying to explain Iraq, which is beyond the ability of a 2 hour film. TBH that kind of depth is for books still. What the Hurt Locker can cover very well is elements of the men on the ground, without any political overtones.
I'm afraid you're falling prey to the idea a film in a setting has to try and cover everything or it's not being fair. This simply isn't true and simply isn't feasible.
Unless you watched a different Hurt Locker to me it doesn't tell the US side or any side. It's about a very small number of men and how they are reacting to a situation which is not even particular to Iraq. With practically no changes you could take the entire film and set it in Vietnam, or World War 2 in Europe, or World War 1.
The Hurt Locker is looking at some universal aspects of combat, not Iraq.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
