"Yingling knows and apparently ignores that our military trains for both unconventional and conventional warfare. He now appears to enjoy unimpaired hindsight and preaches the merits of counterinsurgency as though he experienced a bolt of bright light from the heavens on the road to Damascus. The reality is that before the war, the services operated as we do now, in a resource-constrained world that forces each to make difficult strategic choices about the scope and types of training they undertake. The Army balances our mix of conventional and unconventional training based on consideration of frequent threat assessments and the limitations of our resources. Before Sept. 11, our leadership was rightly focused on the most likely national threats and the difficult task of positioning our forces to counter them. The slowness with which we transitioned to the unconventional environment we now find ourselves in is purely the result of having to shift operational gears in the middle of a fight."
That's one the nicest apologias for strategic planning incompetence I've ever seen.

I do believe that, prior to 11 Sep 01, it had been obvious for ten years at an absolute minimum that countering insurgency was likely to be the Army's lot, like it or not. I'd really say that was true for over 20 years but I'm feeling charitable this morning...

He's correct that the Army does train for both unconventional and conventional warfare -- today. He's almost certainly aware that was not the case prior to 2003 for by far and away the vast majority of the Army.

Mediocre try, no cigar. He's correct about only one thing IMO, getting Congress involved is not a good idea...