I'm one of those who thought war was inevitable. It looked like it was from within the fictional universe.
And I think this book did a good job of showing why that was a misconception: because there were so many people on both sides actively trying to prevent war. (Not to mention because this is fiction. Fiction is routinely about making the worst possible outcome seem
inevitable and then having the heroes avert it against impossible odds. So just because war looks inevitable in a work of fiction, that doesn't mean it can be expected to happen. On the contrary, since fiction often relies on surprise and reversals, war is more likely to break out in a fictional universe when it's un
Obviously the creative minds molding the Star Trek universe can move fictional events however they wish, though they typically try to do so in a logical progression and in such a way that causes us to examine events in our real world.
It is because of real world events that I worry about the future of the fictional universe because with the Khitomer Accords and Typhon Pact we have a situation that resembles the early 1900s where all the major world powers are tied into some treaty obligation where due to one bad move, the entire quadrant falls into war. This situation hasn't existed in Star Trek before because it never had so many alliances between so many powerful nations, some of which are expansionist and militaristic.
Pre 1914, no one expected the massive war that developed nor could they have predicted the scale on which that war was fought especially as a result of the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand.
I know you, Christopher, don't want to see Star Trek to become an ongoing war story/BSG, but that doesn't mean other stakeholders in Star Trek might want to take advantage of the powder keg situation and cause Galactic War 1 to break out.
I should like to respectfully suggest that you may be a touch limited in the scope of your imagination. The parallels you draw are not inapt to be certain. But I think perhaps you underestimate the authors and their commitment (as demonstrated by the stories they tell) to keeping Trek, Trek. It seems to me that rather than telling a story about as you call it Galactic War One, they seem to be using events both contemporary and historical to inspire a narrative that offers a potential guide, or at the very least some food for thought about how things might be guided in a direction other than perpetual warfare.
To me that is what Trek in all it's myriad guises and media has always done best. Not merely reflected back the times in which we live, but shown us the hope of a better path than the one we are on now.
I personally have not been this enthralled with the stories in Trek-Lit in some time as I am with the Typhon Pact storyline/status quo/plot device. I believe the future of written stories is in very good hands indeed and I do not think it possible, let alone probable that we will suddenly find ourselves looking at Trek turned BSG.