The Hurt Locker as Propaganda, or Just Realism?

I haven't anticipated a movie lately as much as I did The Hurt Locker. I saw it last week, and it was much better than the typical “let’s blow shit up” action movie about war. But while it's impressive, I'm seeing some rumblings that it might have gotten a few things wrong and, inadvertently, delivered a pro-war message.

Personally, I can’t decide if some parts, including the ending, glorify combat, or just highlight the depths of his (Jeremy Renner's character) addiction to the thrill of dismantling bombs. I lean toward the latter because he didn’t seem a character wrapped up in the patriotic or debt-to-country reasons for loving his job in the military. There was a hint of a hero complex, that he was the only one who could solve these bombs, but I think looking at the entire story, he’s generally traumatized by what he’s seen and it’s come to a point where he has to keep up the routine to validate himself and achieve that rush. For instance, that heavy metal music at the end as he’s back in Iraq on a mission seems more of what’s in his head rather than some kind of big action movie soundtrack you’d see in big budget war movies.

In a related note, let's not forget the real thing.