I'm not certain there is a legitimate, on-going debate regarding military power. What I mean by legitimate is a debate regarding the principles of war and politics. There's certainly deep divisions on culture and tactics, but those are relevant only to specific cases. So we get arguments about which expression of power is more effective in which particular circumstances. Since all conflict is inherently political, we can find or create situations in which any combination of military power would be most effective. Selective case studies can write any branch, capability, or component into irrelevance.

What I'm more interested in is how (or if) airpower alters the relationship between the political object and military power. Is On War on AF reading lists?

Here's my reading of Clausewitz: War is political. The political object defines the nature of the conflict. Victory becomes the immediate goal and replaces the political objective. Victory is achieved by subduing the enemy's will or destroying his capabilities. Most wars are limited because the political object is limited. I think it's absurd to suggest, therefore, that any form of power is "decisive" if it is not ultimately capable of subduing the will of the enemy or destroying his capabilities. And the way to do that is to deny the enemy space. Land. People don't live in the sky or in the ocean -- they're just ways to get to other people's land. Blow up a man's house from the air and he'll build another house. But take away his land upon which his house is built, and he'll be homeless.