Shifting a general to oversee what were really leadership (not supply) issues is far different than taking an infantryman and making him pump gas.
I think that's what several of us tried to say albeit less eloquently.

Interesting that you mention Nathaniel Greene who was indeed one of Washington's better Generals. I could say that his most successful battle at Guilford Court House was that simply because he copied another of Washington's best generals, Daniel Morgan's (arguably an even better General...) earlier and even more successful tactic at Cowpens. The interesting fact about both battles is that the Generals knew and understood the strengths and weaknesses of their various troops. I think there's a strong message in that...

I'm not a Historian but I am a student of war and an avid reader. History can teach us much, no question but one must be careful of the message one absorbs. One thing stands out over the millenia IMO. It's notable that all the good Generals understood the strengths and weaknesses of their troops and planned accordingly. They also were willing to adapt to the mores and technology of the time.

While there will always be occasional aberrations like the picture below, essentially, the use of the horse in warfare is sorta passé.



I'd be willing to bet big bucks that the guy shown would rebel at being told he had to go turn wrenches in the motor pool.

So, lacking a major war and a draft, is a heavy troop based CSS effort passé. All things considered, that's a good thing because the number of people who want to join the Armed Forces to do that is small and declining. Yes, some changes need to be made in the process -- and some are working; Armies change slowly -- but regression is not a good idea.

Nor is it beneficial. Getting elephants through the Alps today would arouse the Environmentalists...