Carl,

After thinking about your comments some more, it appears that your focus on almost exclusively on tactical thinking and abilities. I don't think anyone argues (I certainly don't at least) that we "lost" Iraq and Afghanistan because of a want of tactics. The Army has strategists, but I'm not sure that you'd call what the Army does as "strategy" - and as Iraq and Afghanistan (and Vietnam, and a number of other wars) demonstrates, an unbroken chain of tactical victories does not necessarily culminate into strategic victory. And that's a GO-level problem. Bottom-line: is the Army organized, equipped, and trained for success on the modern battlefield? Is the officer corps capable of answering that question in the affirmative or making the hard choices to ensure that we can?