Frankly, CGS is taking aim at the symptom not the disease here. Air power has unequivocally reduced the toll on ground forces and this has become ever-more prevalent since Vietnam. Armies are vital - they take and hold territory; close with the enemy, and have almost exclusively delivered the terms of victory by hand. However, as GWI clearly showed, after a significant air campaign waged against strategic and tactical targets alike, the ground war was over in less than 100hours. This is an over-simplification but let's not forget that Saddam possessed the 5th largest armed force in the world at the time.
CGS seems to erroneously infer of an "air power is THE solution" mindset, whereas the reality iis, air power is often the safest and most expedient political instrument to use in the first instance. Just because it deploys early doesn't mean it's the only solution - indeed, it's own weaknesses are made up by having other force domains from Land and Maritime to meet the campaign aims and objectives.
In this instance I disagree with the General, mainly because he's pointing the finger to preserve cap badges. The politicos need to be convinced by positive messaging for a standing Army of XX,000, not through asserting half a story to denigrate the very forces that are proven to reduce his very soldiers' battlefield casualties and greatly amplify its efficacy.