I read this in the introduction of a book before.
Specifically it says
An open admission to researching military history on the conference circuit is usually the cue for furtive sideways glances, polite smiles, and rapid changing of the subject
Throughout international academia, there have been suspicions that those who study war in some ways seek to condone or glorify it
There are a few good older threads on this question, including this one I participated in, which focused more on the label itself as well as this more in depth look at particular historiographical issues at stake. It boils down to yes, "military history" is not a particularly fashionable label in academia (to the extent that many of us actively avoid its application to our work). However, the study of war and conflict itself is very much alive and healthy, it's just approached from a set of standpoints and methodological frameworks that are quite different to traditional military history writing.