You most certainly should be so bold as to suggest your work on unconventional war.
Whew! Just finished reading this Review about the 'Culture and Politics' of American Militarism'. Its efforts are broad and very sweeping. Still, there are points, maybe even to many or in depth to reply for a short Review though excellently done in highlighting significant elements to the Volume.
Find some points to agree and others which would question and even likely prepared to not accept.
Marilyn B. Young. Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism. Edited by Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak. Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond Series. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2021. 232 pp.
Noted how each generation has shifted into the next. Each generation then, might be said to have to 'learn' both strategy and tactics suited to those situations found by their generation ?
Certainly sounds like such and comparisons between generations as history searching for prior historical generations same or similar meaning relate ore directly.
Do computers and their data banks make such a searching, if correct, easier to find answers; or, is it still experiential ?
" Is it worth the time and effort to build survey-type courses to provide a baseline education before discussion can begin?"
Yes, absolutely. The difficulty of looking to non-Western examples is irrelevant to its value.
All true and somewhat obvious - different wars, times and challenges throughout history. Yes, finding an enemy dumb enough to challenge us (the US) on a conventional battlefield plays to our strengths; the speed and finality of the outcome is much more professionally satisfying than getting stuck in low-level conflicts much harder to resolve. Professional soldiers have to deal with the reality of their era and the challenges our government decides to engage us in.
The “big war” v “little war” construct has always been a shadow over American military culture, thus military development, thus military history. For example, General Sheridan, in 1876, did not want to be fighting American Indians. He wanted modern parade ground formations that could beat a European enemy in a stand-up fight with maneuver and firepower like, well, the “good old days” of the Civil War. Lakota, Kiowa, Cheyenne and such were, however, all he had. This filtered down to his officer corps.
Western military studies/PME are certainly myopic, but for a good reason. I'd love to study armies like the Spanish or Ottoman, just as students of current affairs should be immersing themselves in Iranian/Russian/Chinese languages, cultures, and histories. The barrier is the same in both cases: students (and frankly, most instructors, myself included) simply don't have the context or historical background to have intelligent discussions on topics that they're not already somewhat familiar with.
Jonathon Abel's comment on why the French/German rivalry remains our historical go to for these examples is insightful, I'd like to have every U.S. military science PME instructor realize this. But for military historians, shouldn't we be concerned that Western military curricula is so myopic? Especially considering that none of our most likely challengers resemble France or Prussia/Germany, nor do they share a similar Western culture background.
Age of Drones might facilitate such direct ground to air remote direct communications but its practice, by Germans in the pre-Drone era of WW II with the C in C dictator making the tactical decisions by his interventions as they have been said elsewhere, did not seem to work.
Might this history be instructive as well as the Soviet principles and practices ?