I think it was a mistake to put somebody like him on the movie. Producers probably wanted to invest a difference in opinions by letting him in, but if so they happened to be completely off the mark. Was it so hard to find a soldier who is really taking hard deaths of American soldiers (and\or Iraqi civilians) and, although performing his duty, opposes war and therefore Bush? Instead of that they found an unprincipled egoist, whom i cant recall expressing any hard feelings to fallen soldiers or suffering civilians throughout the movie. All he needs there is a combat (his words). He has a respect for insurgents (again nearly a quote). Why? He explains: because situation is no different as if Canada invaded US to overthrow Bush and Americans start defending their country. He missed here all which differ free society from despotism, where despot constantly committing genocide towards controlled population. He missed that considerable part of insurgents are not Iraqi nationals and has no "country-defending" goals. But more important than all he missed that insurgents generally are barbarians who has not a smallest respect for life (including their fellow countrymen), and constantly performing deliberate mass killings of innocent civilians. Could anyone who has a slightest moral feelings miss this last point and therefore feel respect to these maniacs? Not a chance.
All in all the only ones who can appreciate Zack Bazzi's part of movie i guess are those who made hatred to Bush (or to USA for foreigners)their religion, which far surpass any moral or sense of reality. However the major part of the film make it really worth watching.
