@ Dave: Thanks a lot for these details, this will be very helpful !

Quote Originally Posted by Gian P Gentile View Post
...what i have been arguing, is that the American Army has been turned into a counterinsurgency only force which is not good for the Army or the nation. There needs to be a balance.
@ Gian P. Gentile: Well, I totally agree that there should be a balance between different military missions which could potentially be performed by every military service in every armed forces. But I rather see recent reforms / adaptation in the US Army as a way to compensate for a prevailing strong 'conventional warfare' bias, and to promote balanced and adaptive leaders.
You may find too much emphasis on irregular warfare is not good for the Army nor the american nation, however this is precisely the kind of missions the nation's armed forces are involved in right now and will probably still be in the near future. IMHO it would need a tremendous shift in US foreign policy to make these changes totally inappropriate. Exiting Iraq or Afghanistan wouldn't make these changes totally inappropriate, as long as US political leaders still consider military intervention as a useful way to protect US interests abroad. This is not to say that such a policy U-turn cannot happen, just that for now it would be irresponsible to think irregular warfare just as some kind of secondary importance mission.

Corentin