always has, for the officers that is. Like most of the serious combat branch offices don't just read nNapoleon's diary and Alexander the Great's history and call it a day, they chow down on history and theory across the timeline. An example of that is that the Generals in charge of planning the invasion of Iraq read up on the history of the country and military conflicts in the region and noted, much like the then-contemporary Iraqi military planned to defend against, that invasions from the southern border of the Iraqi region traditionally followed the Tigris and Euphrates rivers as those were fresh-water rivers that provided the lifeblood to anyone that wanted to not die of dehydration in the region. So, knowing that historical context the U.S generals launched a rear strike to hammer the main Iraqi Army defence lines behind by crossing across the desert with air assault and airborne forces being deployed from across the hostile desert, and the main mechanized and armored U.S forces formed the anvil to pulverize the Iraqi army against.

Point is, the bonafied war beasts of the military are what they are because they singularly devote themselves to the craft of warfighting to the point they will study anything that could give them the most remote edge in a combat situation. That said, they're thankfully few and far between since genuine war freaks tend to be aberrations in contrast to the rest of the officer population. Funny enough they tend to be pushed aside by the political establishment because the military when you get high enough becomes a political institution and the majority of officers that thrive in that environment are closer to politicians that soldiers.