A relevant and timely film, Lions for Lambs explores various aspects of the conflict in the Middle East. The film points out the mistakes made by the war’s “stiff-collared” decision makers, who are both inexperienced “lambs” that continue to sacrifice ever-growing numbers of American troops, and courageous “lions” in their quest for victory and control in the region. The unsettling disparity between the political side and the harsh reality of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the core of Robert Redford’s directorial effort.

The plot centers around three intertwined story lines, all occurring in real time on the same winter morning. The film begins with a meeting between Republican Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) and veteran journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) in Washington, D.C. The senator calculatedly gifts Roth with an exclusive outline of a new strategy soon to be initiated in Afghanistan, an approach that the senator believes will guarantee American success against the still-present Taliban insurgents in the region and ensure that Afghani revolutionaries do not gain access into Iraq.

Concurrently, halfway across the world, a team of U.S. Special Forces prepares to begin the implementation of Irving’s new strategy. Two of the young men behind the premier mission are Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke). The extent of their relationship becomes clear as Redford’s third and final story line plays out.

As the Special Forces move out toward their intended targets in Afghanistan, political science professor Stephen Malley (Redford) meets with Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield), one of his most promising students. The professor admonishes the young protégé for his diminishing class attendance and the disappearance of his innovative and optimistic outlook. In an effort to crack Todd’s now-jaded attitude, Malley shares the story of two of his former students: Rodriguez and Finch. Through a series of flashbacks, the audience learns of the friendship between the two soldiers, who bonded over their desire to get involved rather than sit back and watch the conflict in the Middle East unfold. Both men enlisted and joined the armed forces, despite their former professor’s unease and warnings.

By far the most moving of the three story lines is the plight of Rodriguez and Finch. The fates of the two comrades allude to the tragic and unnecessary sacrifices that must be made in a war run by detached and victory-driven leaders. Both Pena and Luke portray the young soldiers with earnest determination. Luke is especially engaging — his deep, spirited voice and intense yet innocent eyes grip the viewer in each of his scenes, the consummate romantic and driven American patriot.

The heated back-and-forth between Irving and Roth gives Cruise and Streep ample opportunity to display their extensive acting abilities. Cruise is ingeniously cast as the pompous and ambitious senator; his toothy grin, weighty promises and patriotic exclamations effectively mask an innate and sickening desire to gain political ground at any cost. In her second political movie in as many weeks (Rendition was the first), Streep convincingly struggles with how (and if) Roth will depict Irving’s new strategy in the press, recalling her role in the press’s initial support of a war that has accomplished next to nothing. Roth’s misgivings and uncertainties climax in a terrific scene that allows Streep to at last break out of the prim and professional persona that the first half of the film requires of her. While her famous pursed lips and raised eyebrows emote Roth’s suspicions and hesitations about Irving’s strategy, Streep really shines when the script calls for a frenzied and impassioned outcry about the injustices of the war.

Redford’s screenplay nicely encapsulates all the hot-button issues of the war in Iraq. Roth fires off nearly every conceivable question about strategy and success in the region during her interview with the senator, who smoothly gives the answers that the American public has been getting for months, if not years.

For anyone unfamiliar with the background and present situation in Iraq, the film unfolds like a neat checklist of the present concerns in Iraq. However, anyone comfortable with the minutiae of the conflict will doubtlessly only be frustrated with the film’s repetition of issues beaten to death in the press. Redford’s film merely reiterates points that have already been voiced; the film fails to provide any new angles or ideas on the conflict. Still, Lions for Lambs stands as an accurate testament of the atrocities and tragedies of a war that will doubtlessly come to define a generation.