Mica

Personally, I love the CoD franchise. Yes, they pushed CoD2 out way too quickly (trailing hitboxes, anyone?), and the wait for the patch has been interminable. But the focus on solid infantry combat is what i love most about it. If you want vehicles, go play BF2. If you want a (somewhat) more realistic, up close and personal infantry experience, go with any of the CoD titles.
As far as the "WWII games are old" and "everyone is doing modern shooter" arguments, what else would you suggest? I figure their are 3 options in any semi-realistic war games (if you exclude any moronic sci-fi stuff): past, present, and future. I don't want to be FPSing as a knight, and i don't want lasers and hovercrafts. Eric made a good point about other, recent wars being difficult to translate into exciting and fun games. I for one am not interested in playing "Grenada; The Biggest Little War That Was". If anyone has any suggestions on another realistic, fun war setting for an FPS in the vein of CoD, i am all ears.
Finally, the whole "why's it gotta be terrorists?" thing. At the moment, Terrorists are currently our only legitimate, shooting war enemy. They are socially acceptable as an enemy as all of the Western world has been impacted by terrorism in some way. Any other enemy would either be a joke (US v Luxemburg, battle royale!) or inappropriate politically/socially. How many people would be outraged at a game featuring the US invading Canada, or something similair? Granted, not all terrorists are Muslim/Arabic/etc, and not all Muslims/Arabs are terrorists. But the recent experience of the world makes Middle Eastern terrorists identifiable and more than acceptable as enemies.
All in all I will be anxiously awaiting the release of any CoD sequel. As long as IW takes its time and makes these ones right (still waiting on that damn patch), they have GREAT potential.