Well, once again, I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet, Ken, but coming at the issue from opposite directions. To answer your question, "we" meant those nations that have been sucked into going down the all-purpose, single-type route.
No, it was NEVER intended to be a fighter, but I think its air-to-air capabilities were both over-stated in the early days and over-expected. I can't demonstrate that in public, but I was involved in the trials designed to evaluate that. They may have been valid trials had the specs not changed (for the worse) over the years and had the organisation running them not had a vested interest in maintaining their credibility in the short term.
My Royal Navy counterpart in those days was very clear that the Admiralty were convinced that a next generation SHAR replacement would do the job, despite evidence to the contrary.
I'm not as concerned about F-35 in RAF service because, in the short term at least, there will be better air-superiority fighters and other assets around to do as you suggest. But if the Navy wants its global power projection back it's going to need something to bridge its air defence gap. Somehow, I suspect the FAA just want to be back in the game.