Racedo,
Your comments are, to my mind, right to the heart of the current problem. In recent years and recent conflicts the most senior members of the armed services have not, to my thinking, done their jobs well.
Ultimately, their task is to ask 'Why?' and also 'What do we do after defeating the opposition- what is the follow on plan for the peace?'
ONLY when they have satisfactory answers to those questions should they agree to deploy troops.
Neither of those questions were satisfactorily answered or even asked, evidently, in either Afghanistan or the Iraq case. My view is that as a result those senior servicemen were acquiescing to what were in effect illegal orders.
Politicians are always being bought and paid for, that it seems the Chiefs of Staff effectively have been as well - or are too worried about job security to stand up and be counted - is very disheartening. They above all must never be 'yes men' - or women. At one time they would have stood up to idiotic political follies.
As for the rest of the discussion - dear lord - the folly that 'wars can be won by air power alone' has been disproved many times by now. Without air power, winning is going to be 'challenging', to say the least. All three services are typically necessary, but ultimately only 'boots on the ground' can take and HOLD ground. That is why the Army - or the Marines - are always necessary in the end.
On another note - what do the Canadians think/say went wrong with the single service concept?