No, it doesn't. As I said, Avatar should be recognized over The Hurt Locker for numerous reasons, the obvious being the accomplishment and mark it has already left on cinema and movie making in general. Aside from pioneering a new form of technology and mostly knocking it out of the park with his first go around, Cameron also crafts a film that makes going to the cinema worthwhile, he delivers an experience. On top of that the film is pretty good on its own, but as a whole it is certainly the nominee most deserving of recognition. Rarely in recent memory has Best Picture meant anything close to being the actual best film released, it's too subjective of a word to have a clearly defined winner. Instead, awarding Avatar, a better film than The Hurt Locker anyhow, recognition as Best Picture because of the entire product, the cultural influence, the technological leaps and bounds, the creativity on display, and the technical prowess, as well as the unlike any other experience one can have at a theater is much more justified than tossing an award to Bigelow for having good editors and making a film that, after the Iraq conflict passes and politics calm down, will be possibly recalled as a footnote in cinema. Plus The Hurt Locker just isn't that great.
Though you may, once again, be trying to make a case that The Hurt Locker is somehow more deserving of an audience than any other film nominated, which is, as I have said and explained before, a completely ludicrous statement backed by flimsy logic.
Also, neither Cameron nro Bigelow deserve Best Director, but if one is to win then it should be Cameron.
Additionally, Clovis is on the mark about FMF, it's a damn shame what's going to happen to that brilliant piece of film-making.