Uhmm, you realize that changing a military culture and building a new army are two different activities?
I was writing about changing how an army works/fights. That has always taken a long time because old superiors persist and retain old methods.
To build a new army is a completely different affair, obviously.
You arranged statements to create a contradiction although there was no connection.

If you can show me how wartime will significantly change a culture, we can agree -- until then, it looks like you're trying to have it both ways and are just arguing for the sake of arguing...
The thing that changes is the available time.
If "culture" prevents the quick (few years) creation of effective armed forces, then this needs to be included as argument in the original decision-making whether to start/articipate in the conflict as a foreign power. I wrote that before.
That is the key question; can it be done quickly or not. Such enterprises are usually (if not always) not acceptable if it takes 10 years.
I don't care about the difficulties. Can it be done or not? That's what the politicians and the public need to know in advance.

I see basically four possibilites:

1)
many years available (~peacetime) / training to high standards is desirable and possible
2)
few years available (~wartime or crisis) / training to high standards is desirable and possible in time, training to regional standards is possible in time
3)
few years available (~wartime or crisis) / training to high standards is not possible in time, training to regional standards is possible in time
4)
few years available (~wartime or crisis) / training to high standards is not possible in time, training to regional standards is not possible in time

Option 4 pretty much means that the costs of warfare would be extreme - if not unbearable - for a foreign power that substitutes for the indigenous armed forces.
I have an impression that option (2) was too often assumed to be true, that this assumption is the default assumption and that this has led to several failures in the past.


Ken; the basic dispute here is between your "the job needs to be done" attitude and my "looks like some decisions were wrong" attitude.
You pretty much insist that the time for mission accomplishment has to be granted.
That ignores the often excessive price that needs to be paid to buy that time, and that some missions are simply not worth that price.


Imagine this scenario:
year 2002
people argue for & against an invasion of Iraq
contra party says it would lead to an insurgency
majority is contra war now
pro party says that SWC and others have developed great strategies to defeat the insurgency
majority is pro war now
contra party says that experts think that to defeat an insurgency requires a new Iraqia rmy and ten years of training
case closed, invasion won't happen, nobody is willing to fight a 10 year war for the expected benefits