At the time, the news didn't attract much notice, perhaps because it was a little confusing. A lot of Sgt. Rock fans thought the film might be in his future rather than Earth's, and we would see him fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq. While that was a logical leap, it turned out to be wishful thinking. Joel Silver told the LA Times that Sgt. Rock will indeed be jumping into the not-too-distant future and saving humanity. There's no hint as to who or what he will be fighting in that futuristic battlefield. Will it be an old enemy made new again, such as Russia or neo-Nazis? Or will it be something like aliens or cyborgs? Silver is keeping tight-lipped, and revealed only that a new draft of the script had arrived: "It's a little bit in the future. As a war movie, it's not going to be 'where it's been,' it's going to be 'where it's going.' We didn't want to do Iraq, we didn't want to do a contemporary war. We wanted to do a sort of futuristic war. It's pretty strong."
I still don't understand the point. Like Cap, Sgt. Rock is the kind of character that was created and defined by WW2. He belongs there. I think Inglourious Basterds proved audiences were hungry for fictional WW2 adventures. The appeal of films like The Dirty Dozen and Where Eagles Dare has never waned. Why not go classic with Sgt. Rock instead of so silly and generic?