Hollywood may have suffered a self-inflicted Shock and Awe barrage when it produced four high-profile flops on the war on terror last year. Reese Witherspoon will need another “Legally Blonde” installment to recover from “Rendition” and Tom Cruise better find an old military uniform that fits after his more preachy-than-peachy “Lions for Lambs.” But hey, that was the verdict of the American people. And, as we all surely know, Americans in general are sorely lacking in downtown sensibility.

Enter George Packer, a New Yorker magazine writer who makes a living finding things to excoriate about the conduct of the war in Iraq. Beginning tomorrow, the Culture Project will stage a “dramatization” of his New Yorker article entitled “Betrayed.”

Subscribers to the New Yorker may already be aware that “Betrayed” focuses on the misfortunes of those Iraqis who joined with coalition forces as interpreters and in other necessary civilian support jobs. As the war and reconstruction effort foundered, many of these people became targets of their disillusioned compatriots.

In some cases, they chose to flee the country and found it difficult to obtain visas or other help from the American government. Bureaucratic red tape, indifference among American officials, and the constant threat of abandonment as the war became more unpopular in both Iraq and America are the principal themes of the article, and they remain the source of dramatic tension in the script.

But if you are sentient and informed, you are aware that tens of thousands of refugees, presumably including some former Coalition employees, are flooding back into the country as conditions have improved. (The original article was reported in January and published in March — long before the effects of the surge could be felt.) Some of the play’s references to dangerous neighborhoods in Baghdad no longer apply as markets and other businesses have reopened. This certainly removes some of the currency of the play and raises serious questions about the wisdom of trying to turn a snapshot from a war into a work of art. And while it is difficult to evaluate the full dramatic potential from a printed script, it would seem that the director and others have their work cut out for them in turning this script into theater. As a dramatist, Mr. Packer writes like a perfectly fine journeyman magazine correspondent.

Moreover, there are a few miscalculations in the author’s short introduction to his play: Is Iraq really still the world’s most violent country? What about Darfur, a country America has not yet invaded? And calling his protagonists as “hunted and helpless as European Jews in the early 1940s” seems a stretch even in pre-surge Iraq, much less in January 2008. Nobody can predict with any assurance that the hopeful recent signs in Iraq will persist or evaporate. The glacial political progress, which is only now beginning to respond to improvements in the military situation, has frustrated supporters of the war as well as its opponents.

It seems irresponsible, however, to ignore recent developments. Indeed, it almost suggests a large emotional investment in ultimate American defeat. That may work on the stage of a SoHo theater, but it is definitely high-risk behavior in the political sphere.