Ummm, there might be good reasons to occupy one place or another. I do believe that military doctrine must be ready to shape the strategy to whatever situation arises. That could range from very low intensity surgical operations to slagging the place. Wouldn’t each situation come with its own demands?
“... there might be good reasons to occupy one place or another. ... doctrine must be ready ... whatever situation arises. ... Wouldn’t each situation come with its own demands?
Of course each situation is different. Not a one can be perfectly planned for in advance.
But traditionalists ought not worship footsoliders as the solution for any and all problems. In so doing, they reveal that their thinking has not yet reached the first decade of the 19th century.
Infantry has less mobility and puts forth less firepower per individual than any other US military capability. Without extensive and detailed support, they aren’t anything more than targets, too easily held hostage by the situation and any enemy present.
It’s never stated just what footsoldiers can do, that other branches and other force capabilities cannot. “Holding ground” is endlessly spoken of, but the truth is that infantry cannot even do that, unless all support is on the scene. And if infantry are committed, all attention turns their way and the situation is in peril of falling apart: the objective is transformed from performing the original mission, to bailing out the troops in trouble. Resources that were accomplishing the original mission get diverted.
Traditionalist thinkers need to stop repeating “boots on the ground” as if it were Holy Writ, or some magical mantra, and inform themselves about the changes wrought over the past two centuries.