Micah 5:2 and 5:6, the Bethlehemite

But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.
He will deliver us from the Assyrian when he invades our land and marches into our borders.
//Micah prophesied the arrival of a military savior who would rescue Israel from the Assyrians. When no such savior appeared, this prophecy was retained in the minds of later readers as a general reference to the anticipated Jewish Messiah. 
The Christian claim, of course, is that Jesus was (and is) this very Messiah. Micah 5:2 is quoted by Matthew as evidence that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, so Matthew clearly recognized Micah's prophecy as relating to Jesus.
But why didn't Matthew read the entire chapter before referencing verse two? Did he really think Jesus would fight a military battle against the Assyrians? If Matthew expected a military victory from his Messiah, did he think the defunct Assyrian dynasty would be restored after 600 years? Do those who expect Jesus to return and fight at Armageddon expect the Assyrian dynasty be restored after 2,600 years?
These sorts of questions highlight the problem with taking Old Testament Bible prophecies of Jesus literally. Matthew was no idiot; he surely knew he was reinterpreting the Bible as he quoted Micah. If the authors of the Gospels, thought by many to be the very disciples sitting at the feet of Jesus, knew the prophecies were being fulfilled in a symbolic or other non-literal way, why should we read the Bible literally today? Why do we imagine, for example, that Revelation's horrors are to be interpreted literally?