GrahamO,
Your argument can be turned completely on its head. "Boots on the ground" carry a high political risk - as you point out, the government feels the heat as soldiers die week after week, year after year. This does not inevitably lead to prioritising the Army above all else.
Air and sea power carry less political risk in their employment and are therefore arguably more useful, especially for an island nation. I believe the future appetite for enduring troop deployments will be minimal - and if they do happen, they will most likely be under the UN or EU banners.
Partially-relevant quote from Robert Gates last month:
In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined
If the Americans are thinking like this, what do you think our government are thinking? The Army are deluded if they think they are going to escape the pain once we're out of Afghanistan. Future interventions will be just like the original (successful) bit of HERRICK - SF supported by air/maritime.