I concur with 27mm's assessment of "A Bright Shining Lie". Teeth-grindingly frustrating when you read the early chapters. A reader could be forgiven for thinking that the the mid-60's US hierarchy and the military/industrial establishment actually wanted the war to expand/continue rather than be wound up and won in the insurgency phase, as it quite possibly could have been, with 1% of the eventual effort and expenditure, in the early days. (Silly, silly me.. did I actually employ a disbelieving tone when saying: "A reader could be forgiven for thinking that the ... US ... military/industrial establishment actually wanted the war to expand/continue"? Of course they did. Back then, it never occurred to them for one minute that those sandal-wearing, Commie 'slope' peasants would actually beat them - and transpose, with not a single lesson learned, 'mid 60's US leadership' and 'slopes' for 'Donald Rumsfeldt/Dick Cheney et al' and 'Al Queda ragheads' and you've got a second US-manufactured war that could very well go the same way as Vietnam. [However, I can't see the 'ragheads' holding fire as the CH53s lift the Marines and last of the US diplomats off the Baghdad embassy roof.)
Just finished "3 PARA", by Patrick Bishop, the story of 3 Para's 2006 deployment to Afghanistan. Excellent read, which, (if from the Grunt's perspective), paints a very clear picture of the incrediblly important role air power is playing in keeping our troops in some very unwelcoming situations - and how the Brits lack the right aircraft, particularly transport/casevac helicopters, for the job.
Just started 'Fiasco -The American Military Adventure in Iraq', by Thomas e. Ricks. Not very far into it yet, but it looks very promising and extremely damning of the US political and senior military leadership.