William Lind simply identifies himself as being uninformed. The military continues to be led by reformers in all of our services, and if he would actually do some homework he could discover that. It would be another thing if he said he didn't agree with their transformational ideas, but that isn't what he wrote.

He states we had,
four defeats in Fourth Generation War—Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan
The actual military objectives for Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan were achieved rather quickly, but our political leadership directed we engage in nation building we ran into challenges for a lot reasons that have little to do with the failure of the military to reform. In fact the military reformed while fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to adapt to what I believe is a toxic doctrine, but regardless the military adapted. Now the military is adapting to address more pressing threats we have ignored. Generals like Stan McCrystal super sized Boyd's OODA loop with a very innovative approach to disrupt and dismantle terrorist networks in Iraq. GEN Petreaus (sp?) reformed COIN training and practice in Iraq (he failed to adapt to the realities of Afghanistan). The only thought I could find common ground with Mr. Lind on is that our officer corps is too big by at least 30%, and we too quickly move these men and women through their career pipelines which hinders their ability to mature professionally. This is largely due to bean counters in the human resources world seeking ways to retain personnel, versus develop personnel. Quick promotions were, and perhaps are, seen as a way to provide incentive to keep these officers in the service. The ill effects of this decision are coming home to roost.