Yes, I like your allusion to "Catch-22" (the book, not the movie) and its effect on "Three Kings", Russell's earlier work. The style of "Huckabee's" borders on the absurd, ala Heller's masterpiece, much more so than "Three Kings", which is more straightforward in its storyline and narrative structure. But, of course, "Three Kings" and "Catch-22" are both stories about the absurdity of war and the military, so they're similar in that regard. It's a trinity of absurdity, if you will.

Evidently during the filming of "Huckabee's", Russell would say and do things, such as taking off all his clothes during a shoot, to keep his actors on edge. It worked. None of the characters, other than Wahlberg as you point out, are particularly believable or "real" in a traditional sense (i.e. full of soul and passion). I think he meant the film to be absurd, a post-modern take, if you will, on today's society. Viewed in that context, I think he succeeded. The insanity of the film reflects a perceived inability to affect any sort of meaningful change in our society today. The last four years and the Bush re-election attest to that. Maybe the characters don't resonate on a personal level in a traditional sense, as I already stated, but then again neither do the characters in "Catch-22", and that book is still brilliant and hilarious.