Interesting that an extremely conservative movie is nominated for Oscars, including best picture, in an extremely liberal Hollywood. Furthermore, not only is it nominated for best picture but Bradley is nominated for best actor which counters your argument considerably.
-Best picture
-Best Actor
-Best Writing Adapted Screenplay
-Best Film Editing
-Best Sound Mixing
Lastly, if you actually payed any attention to the movie you should have realized it's actually an anti-war movie. It clearly shows the effects of war on a solider and the deadly effects of PTSD as a result of exposure to war and how it changes the psyche of human emotions and the aftermath of what happens to the family on the home front. If anything, and its obvious you completely missed the point of the movie, Eastwood was showing the ugly emotional toll on soldiers. Now, regardless of your view on America's Military/Government/Decisions to go to war are in fact irrelevant because nothing about the movie portrays any of that. It's strictly down to the emotional toll soldiers endure (my wife included, she was Navy & at Gitmo) on what happens to a soul once it has actually seen war. If anything this movie was to show America the bad side (death included) of war, not the reward ceremony at the end but that actual day-to-day regress in quality of life for soldiers as they cope with what they saw.
Your criticism is certainly noted, but I'll take actual movie critics opinion more seriously. It's interesting because here in DC the movies are obviously loaded with current/retired US soldiers who can speak to the horrors they faced/committed during wartime.
Again, I'm sure there will be another smart ass comment that follows this that people laugh at or poke comments at Americans, like myself, and that's fine but you won't see me stoop down so go right ahead with the rash comments.