Based on what facts are you making your judement?
They better be good because I will blow them out of the water once you post them if they're not!
And since you asked for examples (so you could blow me out of the water) how about the fact that in just the Afghan operations there was a sever crisis when it came to the numbers of JDAM munitions after a month! (DOD)
Or what about the low numbers of cruise missile, botht he Tomahawk and the air launched B-52 version crusie missile? And even when Clinton did that tactical strike against al Queda in 1998 aftre the Embassy bombings there were calls for replenishing the supplies of the Tomahawks.
Now, if relatively limited operations in Afghanistan can drain the military resources so, what about a drawn out campaign against red China? Bigger landmass plus better defenses than Afghanistan (which only had 1980s stingers while the Chinese have Chzech radar that can track the F-117A). It is just a simple matter of logical progression. The US is just not ready for such a campaign, probably not even for a dug in Iraqi defense. And although we would probaly win the death toll would be prohibitive (especially when you consider most civilians would not stand by and see their sons and daughters killed. ) Think 'nam.
However it seem ill apt to deal with assymetrical warfare from states that have a weak overall military, but are in possession of some strategic peices of high tech equipment. For example China purchasing sunburn missiles from Russia, and those were designed for only one thing. Being highly manoeuvrable, going in a riple effect (a salvo attacking at different altitudes and angles to beat ship defenses, with some missiles skimming the surface, some going on a high trajectory, and others zig zagging...and all hit at the same time), and they were meant for one thing.....US aircraft carriers.
There are many assymetrical threats, and the US is still adapting to them. And due to years of atrohy it is just not ready. Yet.
But definitely not ready.