I have refrained from posting some of the commentary elsewhere on this episode in Anglo-American history, but this article on RCP fits nicely to this discussion. So caveat aside:
Last month marked the 200th anniversary of the start of the War of 1812.
Yes, a war in which the British burned down Washington's public buildings.

I digress!

In 1812, Great Britain presented U.S. war planners with a very challenging strategic problem, one with contemporary irony given America's 21st century military might: How do you wage successful war against a global superpower?

Two numbers illustrate America's quandary. The RN began the war with around 500 warships. The U.S. Navy had 14, though when the war began not all were crewed and seaworthy.

However, as Kevin McCranie demonstrates in his new book, "Utmost Gallantry: The U.S. and Royal Navies in the War of 1812" (Naval Institute Press), the tiny USN was a talented, courageous, well-led and therefore dangerous mouse.
Link:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ve_114755.html

Yes, today the USA is a leading superpower and faces adversaries that are dangerous mice. Today, not tomorrow, today; question does the US have armed forces that are:
talented, courageous, well-led and therefore dangerous
From my very limited engagement with the US military, mainly via SWC, there is clearly talent, courage, leadership and it can be dangerous. There's also a lot of baggage that is a dead weight, such as the conformism of such a large institution and the lack of real-world training (Ken W. often reminding us of that).