This perception really isn't true though. That the general public has not been exposed to the equivalent current documentation doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

This perception really isn't true though. That the general public has not been exposed to the equivalent current documentation doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The level of understanding that many leaders have going into these situations, and especially their earnestness to want to help in material ways ... is very high. The US Army didn't 'build schools' in Germany and many atrocities were committed there, far more so than incidents today which are generally widely reported. The US firebombed German and Japanese cities and burned them to the ground, with mass civilian casualties. It was a completely different story in Iraq for example. If the US were to have 'had to invade' Iraq in WW2, the era of this 'friendly publication' - well, they wouldn't have had a problem levelling entire cities either if it were deemed necessary. Large swaths of US activity in Iraq and Afghanistan focused directly on construction and support of civil services. More so than probably any intervention in history. That's not to say there aren't gaping holes in understanding and that it frankly may not make much of a difference anyhow, but it's more true that one would expect reading the slightly cynical comments here. I do appreciate the familiar tone of the publication, and I do agree that there's something there we ought to admire, however, we do live in different times.