Steve Metz has published a valuable article.

[Surferbeetle]

...looking before we leap is very important. Our current and future military is duty bound to provide solid advice to our leaders as to the anticipated costs of proposed actions.

The question I ask, in view of history, is there a better way? Can those 'expeditions' be avoided. I submit they can be. Why do we insist on playing to our opponents strengths? Repeatedly...I hope you're wrong and that we do not find that balance simply because the price paid thus far for the results obtained indicate that we really do not do this well.

I see fundamental changes in USG attitudes and many are searching for a better way.

I don't have all the answers my friend but I know in my marrow that exclusively focusing upon a single variable to the exclusion of all others does not solve a multivariate equation. We could also consider the similarities between a Mixed Martial Arts match and Full Spectrum War; limiting oneself to only boxing skills ups the risk factor. IMHO DOD must consistently provide first responder capabilities in lines of action other than security, while remaining the subject matter experts on security, in order to be able to contain and properly focus the destruction that accompanies war. IMHO the rest of the USG too must have expeditionary elements to be able to contain and properly focus the destruction that accompanies war.

I also believe based on my experience and observation of recent efforts that we are getting worse instead of better...

It is my personal observation that there are massive differences between a light security footprint and a heavy security footprint. As to quality more first hand observations of our current operations are needed in order to provide a current impression...