It's real.
War movies don't have to be about politics, logic, or what have you. The Hurt Locker was about the experiences of its one group of main characters. Soldiers often don't question what they're going into (not publicly, anyway). They just perform. And upon being released from the military, they have to be re-introduced to society. That's not an easy thing to do. To go from living a crazy life like that where you're somewhat programmed to a "normal" life. Ask anybody that's been in the military for any amount of time. They may be reluctant to tell you but many (including me) will tell you about times where they jump up in the middle of the night and stand at attention by their bedside.
In my current job, there's a guy named R. Lindsay that has been blown up repeatedly. He's missing a testicle, his tail bone, his wrist is all fucked up, and something is wrong with his leg. He looks like a fucking teddybear but when he tells the stories about the first person he killed (most guys won't talk about their experiences), he turns into a different person. Then, when his stories are over, he reverts back to his normal joking self. He kept going back because that's what they made him. He kept going back and getting blown up and shot at because of this.
I don't think the movie was propaganda. It showed good and bad on both sides (like that kid Beckham or the main character's own teammates debating blowing him up or US soldiers killing a man who could have survived). From what I know, the movie wasn't politcal. It was just a portrait of reality.
