The problem is human nature. The experience of the “Battleship Admirals” is a case in point. The military is no different than other large entities. The senior people who come to lead and administer it are most influenced and enamored by the technology and techniques they mastered in their prime. The naval officers who came of age in the 1920’s in all the major navies loved nothing more than the armored, high firepower battleships on which they served and commanded. Thousands of young men from all the major navies (Germany, Britain, France, Italy, the US and Japan) died on those ships in WW II when those who warned about their vulnerability to air power were ignored. Today all floating capital ships despite their impressive defensive weapons face technological threats such as stealthy missiles, equally stealthy flocks of drones, long range torpedoes, asymmetrical attacks and technological challenges that constantly change. Yet for those who served in those ships and now direct their deployment such threats seem surreal and not plausible. Military history sadly has innumerable examples of Generals fighting wars with techniques made obsolete and deadly by technological advances. WW I infantry suffered horrible causalities with murderous frontal charges against machine guns and modern rifles, huge cavalry units were maintained at great expense and the squandering of resources. Adjustments are eventually made, but many die before the necessary changes in leadership are made. Frankly believe that Mattis is a great leader and understands the vulnerability of his best assets if he has to fight an all out war. Hopefully most of his Generals and Admirals don’t equate bravado with courage and thoughtful reflection with somehow being a coward.
While it’s undeniable that most admirals failed to recognize that battleships had been overtaken by aircraft carriers as the capital ship of modern navies between the world wars, I respectfully disagree that this fact buttresses your view of today’s carrier force. Aside from the Arizona and the Oklahoma lost at Pearl Harbor, where they were caught essentially defenseless, the US Navy lost zero battleships during WWII.
The navies of Germany, Italy, and Japan were unable, aside from the submarine threat, to mount a sufficient offensive capability to challenge the heavily armored battlewagons. By using fleet tactics that others have alluded to in regards to modern carrier task force operations, destroyers and other smaller ships, along with air cover from carriers, kept the large ships relatively safe.
It’s a fact of warfare that assets are lost in combat. The US Navy lost twelve carriers, but in so doing dispatched twenty Japanese carriers. It was the overall superiority of numbers, training, logistics, weapons and operations that won the battle. It’s ever thus. I see no nation that will easily challenge American naval power in the foreseeable future. Keeping the technological edge, and the will to win if war breaks out, are the keys going forward.