Are we really training seriously for the next conventional war? All the signs I see say no.

Too bad you are still often training for the last war and new legal matters when fighting these wars. Politics are such a big part of this as well. REMEMBER! You are a tool and cannon fodder. To think differantly is folly. Remember how you felt after buying a car from that used car salesperson. Well be ready for the real world when you complete twenty years of service. You'll see all was just a lie or you will skip down the yellow brick road and be happy.

Potential adversaries know that we struggle in fights where it is a game of battlefield wack a mole. They saw it in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. That type of fight is more likely than the planned Cold War meet them at the Fulda Gap type fight.
As a nation our people have shown they are casualty adverse going back even to WWII. They will demand and expect a quick victory as opposed to a protracted slug fest involving high casualities with little to no gain.
Our national industrial base required for a major fight is no longer there to quickly build and repair ships, aircraft, vehicles and other implements of war that will be needed.
Military manpower in a major fight will be an issue as the Regulars, Reserves and Guard warfighters will need replacements not seen since Vietnam, Korea or WWII. The draft would have to come into play and not too many of our young folks and their families would want to play that game.
So, if by continuing to train for wack a mole fights is what is happening than that is probably the best bet.

After Viet Nam we had a draw down of manpower and budgets. Half of Congress was cowtowing to beligerent, anit-military and anti-American college students (sound familiar?). We had a gas crisis...long lines at the pumps, gas stations closed or imposed limits on gallons...(some used last number of your license plate to dictate whether you were able to buy gas on odd or even days.) Our DOD was impotent and even the military couldn't get gas. Our fighter squadrons went to a four day work/fly week...so any gas we did have would go to the C130's for inflight refueling and cargo missions. Tank tactics were taught on golf carts. Deployments were longer, ships out to sea longer, parts were breaking and harder to get and even harder to pay for. Pay was lousy and base housing was, in a lot of places, rat traps. Anybody remember enlisted housing at El Toro? History repeats itself...so I'd say no...we are not training for the next one. We are marking time. Russia knows it, China knows it and of course, Iran knows it. So we have a few flashy weapon systems to show the public. THe only ship in the Navy has right now as far as the public is concerned is the Zumwalt. The Air Force is still fighting over mothballing the A10. The Marines are worried about what to call the 'cockpit' in the next generation of fighters.
And the public is leaning towards another socialist leaning, UN loving, One World zealot. So...No.

It won't be a conventional war.

Warfare as we know it has changed forever the best course of action IMO would be cross trains and be even more flexible

I am keeping prepared, even at 68 years of age. I have the fire power both weapons and ammunition along with bug out bags and subsistence preparations. Bring it on, and you know they will, sooner than later.

War is ever evolving. No one standard will ever prepare you for all the complexities. With this thought, we train the best way we know how to. The best training comes from those who have seen, fought and witnessed war first-hand. Doctrine, guidelines and practices are general baselines used to build a certain skill-set within an individual and prepare their mind and body to respond to an unplanned event (Battle Drill). Outside the textual confines of printed expectancies exists reality. The truth is, every war, conflict and battle will always remain uncertain until the men and women who oppose such a threat engage the opposition. This truth is due to one simple fact; we all have the ability to choose, act and respond individually and independently. Choice is everything.

Focus on the twenty-five meter target, learn, problem-solve and continually war game strategies of past historical accounts.

In the end, the knowledge you have doesn't belong to you, it belongs to your Soldiers. So be sure to share that knowledge--because that's where effective training comes from.

I have a simple, albeit only semi-relevant, metric for how seriously a unit is training (or otherwise preparing) for any conflict: How many 4-day weekends have you had this year versus how many 1-day weekends?

How conventional are we talking? Look at the US Military's current capabilities gaps...that's where the next fight will start. Cyber? Probably. Economic? Definitely. Information? Yep, that too.

There are domains where the various elements of DIME become difficult, perhaps impossible for the US to wield offensively because of the nature of our republic and its various instruments.

Define "conventional" war. Do you mean two near-tier states competing over large fronts trying to gain territory and footholds with established FEBA and FLOTs? I doubt we will see that again. I expect future conflicts will be similar to what we have experienced over the last 15 years. semi-organized insurgent groups with scattered pockets of held territories; probably partially dependent on sponsorship of local warlord or tribal leaders that are sympathetic to the cause.

Since you posted this in CBRN, are you thinking CBRN agents? I think that large scale use like what was done in WW1, won't occur. I would expect small-scale poorly defined attacks, probably with sub-standard delivery systems and outdated CBRN agent stores. We are already seeing this kind of attack in Syria and ISIL-controlled areas in Iraq.

I am not saying that we should not improve our CBRN defense readiness. I think there is a lot of room to increase our proficiency there.

On the other hand, one just has to look at Eastern Europe and Russian posturing to think that maybe there is a need to at least touch on a more conventional war approach.

This may already be doctrine, but I think each major command should focus on training for the most likely "flavor" of war in their region, but still consider alternative plans.