We are going to see mounting debate (probably AFTER the presidential election) as to whether we should sustain a grand strategy focused on "irregular stuff" or move toward what strategists call an "offshore balancing" strategy where we may intervene in failed states with nukes or oil, but we don't hang around to try and re-engineer them.

Of course, this effort is led to some extent by the Navy, but more by the Air Force.
The Air Force and Navy are attempting to undermine irregular warfare concepts and instead develop an alternative strategy (Gun boat/ship diplomacy) that is dependent on our high tech Navy and Air Force weapons system? Um, isn't this the strategy that has failed us so many times before? I wonder what belt way bandit industries were pushing this concept? Pardon me, but I smell other agendas than national defense here.

Exactly how are we going to intervene in a failing state with significant oil reserves with Air or Naval power? Let's assume Nigeria finally fails as a state and various tribes are competing for control of the oil fields, so our only military response will be to bomb them? That will secure our interests?

We're seeing something else here, and it isn't honest intellectual discussion.