Fuchs:

Heh. No one who ever carried a BAR is the slightest bit nostalgic about that monster...

This:
You better switch to auto if you're close enough to even consider shot placement.
is just flat wrong. It's a dangerous fallacy created by the Russians who also fielded half trained Soldiers to compensate for that lack of training and one that has been since adopted by people who should know better. Full auto, Shotgun, Rifle, Pistol, Howitzer, Mortar -- whatever -- shot placement is critical. Inaccurate fire is totally worthless and a full auto capability encourages its use and thus the resultant inaccuracy.
Low performance infantryman + high performance weapon = still low performance.
That's true but it is not because 'competent' armies HAVE to do it that way, it is simply the way they've always done it -- and it's wrong. Most Armies have too many Infantrymen and the majority of them are only marginally trained.This is partly induced by the myths that Mass is critical; Infantry is 'cheaper' than armored vehicles; and Infantry can do everything. In reverse order, it cannot and should not; proper infantry is more expensive than an armored unit -- there's nothing that's more cost inefficient than an Infantry Battalion in peacetime...

Mass is vastly overrated as an effect simply because we are inheritors of 'tradition' -- and inertia.
It would take major personnel system improvements to solve this without resorting to a tiny all-SF infantry force.
Yes -- sorely needed, too. I have read and agree with much of your linked Blog post IF Armies intend to continue doing business as they have. I contend a new model is needed and that infantry as levee en mass is woefully outdated -- and a habit. I agree psychological selection is important -- I'd say imperative -- and agree that the 80% exist -- they can be Artillerists and Armor crewmwen, MPs Engineers and so forth which really do -- and should -- vastly outnumber the infantry. Infantry do not need to be trained to high end SOF capability but they need to be more than space fillers...


JMA:
If not you should move your firepower down to the level of deployment.
Nope. Keep that firepower consolidated for proper training and employment -- which can include detaching pairs of guns with trained crews including Ammo bearers to Platoon or smaller elements as needed.

No armed force IMO should ever always deploy in any set strength; METT-TC and all that...

Vojnik:
The USMC evaluated the Colt Automatic Rifle in 1977 and decided to go with the Minimi instead, correct? So, 30 years later they say "Ooops...got that wrong"? But yet still retain the 3-round burst on the M-16A4? Or hell...still retain the M-16A4 period...
During peacetime, the Marines are captive to Army procurement. Congress tends to insist that one size fits all (it never does...) and that everyone should use the same equipment. Stupid and shortsighted, nominally based on cost grounds and generally wrong on that but there it is. The Marines tried to resist the M16 altogether back in 1963 -- they did not succeed. They tried to resist the M249 (as did some in the Army). The Army through Barry McCaffrey (then AC at USAIS) was pushed into the M4 based on that fatally flawed 'automatic fire is required for all' mantra though they in a bow to the flaw in that argument insisted on the rather dumb three round burst bit -- yet another attempt to substitute technology no matter how flawed for training. Given the 'Stan and Iraq, the Marines developed some independence in their procurement -- independence they should never have been denied in the first place.

That said, Fuchs is probably right and its a slick way to get rid of the very flawed M16 / M4. More power to 'em.