Actually the sub-title for a FP Blog piece, written by its editor and the title is 'A New Challenge for Our Military: Honest Introspection':http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._introspection

The second opening paragraph will suffice to start:
Yes, certainly there has been national debate about whether we should have been involved in those wars, one that has belatedly delivered the message to our political leadership that it is time to bring our troops home. But about one crucial array of issues concerning our involvement we have been stunningly silent: the competence of our military leaders, the effectiveness of the strategies they have employed, and the very structure and character of our military itself.
His last sentence is:
Let's do our duty to ourselves and show our military that we respect it enough to know that it can stand up to the scrutiny it deserves.
There are a few signs here in the UK that our own civil-military leadership are uncomfortable with the two wars and the debate is in similar terms:
the competence of our military leaders, the effectiveness of the strategies they have employed, and the very structure and character of our military itself.
When I say civil-military leadership in the UK I do not mean political leadership, rather the senior permanent civil servants and the senior military officers.

From this distant vantage point there is already a debate about these issues, but it appears not to resonate with the winder public nor amongst elected representatives.