Reading about old Wars

I went to a Barnes and Nobles (a book store) the other day to finally read up on some history. The way things went in Iraq and how things are going in Afghanistan, thought it would be good to read about something relevant that would help me understand. Sure, books on both conflicts are fine, but I think they generally represent small views of ongoing wars. It is only wars that have ended, reviewed and carefully researched about that produce literature that's truly comprehensive.
So I went to find a book on the Malaya Emergency since it was among the few cases of a Western army beating a local insurgency.
I learned something completely different altogether.

Bullshit: Fixation about World War II.
The Truth: World War II is a war that's well past. The US hasn't won a truly major war since 1945 and it's because the US cannot think beyond World War II.


Just shelve it

Now I am in no way against remembering those who have fought for our freedoms and that of others in the past, but the problem with these World War II books is that they simply fix the way you see conflict and war in a purely conventional way. You will always see conflict through the lens of conventional warfare where divisions, mass attacks, heavy firepower and Generals who like to piss everybody else off reign supreme.
If you are a historian or a budding historian or history is your thing, by all means (though I think World War II has been read to death) go ahead and read World War II stuff. But if you're serious and you're in the business, STOP READING WORLD WAR II BOOKS. Wars in general have not been fought that way since the Korean War and this ogling over impressive OOBs (or ORBAT or O/B depending on who you are) etc. is a waste of time. In this day and age, if you're stocked up with division after division of soldiers, heavy equipment etc., unless you are facing a purely conventional foe with a purely conventional mission (like Gulf War I), you are wasting your time.

So wait, did I come up with this by reading the book I eventually found? Not really. I realized it when I found out just how HARD it was to find a book on Malaya. It wasn't a purely dedicated book on Malaya either, rather a comparison between Malaya and Vietnam and their implications on current counterinsurgency operations (Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife by John Nagl, a superb read). And there was only one copy in the store. Meanwhile there were three book shelves full of World War II books and two book shelves full of Vietnam books.
Basically when Americans think "history" that doesn't include the birth of their country or the civil war, it's about basking in the glory of a time long gone (World War II) or dealing with national pain (Vietnam).
What's there to learn about current wars from World War II? Nothing.
What's there to learn about current wars from Vietnam? Nothing if you think that the Generals actually did a good job and the civilian leadership ruined it for everyone. Bullshit. These World War II Generals didn't know the war they were fighting and sent people to their deaths for nothing.
Funny thing, when I read the book, the author John Nagl actually said the same thing.

Bottom line: stop reading World War II books. Read Vietnam books with caution. Read about the Malayan Emergency. Perhaps also Operation Artemis but I'm not sure if good literature is out regarding that.