I'm unclear on what the author actually wants to do. Improve our "strength of will," boost the size of the military, freeze out media that we perceive to be inimical to our purposes, or what?
I think Peters wants to do all those things--plus reduce reliance on ever more expensive military toys which may not be usable on the battlefields of asymetrical warfare.
The armor guys fought for the Abrams when the spectre of Russian tanks coming through the Fulda Gap in Germany was a real possibility. Fair enough, even though the obvious answer to an armored breakthrough by the Russians was the nuclear option, no one wanted to contemplate it.
But is the Abrams one of the best weapons to use in Iraq where there are no front lines? Sure, it got us to Baghdad in record time against Saddam's inferior army and armor, but then we found out they never intended to fight a static war with defended lines.
And the new air superiority fighter is going to fight which air force? It won't be as much use in the type of air fighting we are likely to see as helicopters and the old A10.
He's simply reminding us that generals always prepare for the next war by repeating the lessons learned from the last war. UNfortunately, the enemy can read too and tries to develop strategies to use against your strengths.
Instead of playing whack-a-mole, Peters would have us think about it differently.
The Battle of the Atlantic and counterinsurgency, part one