Should the Army be so focused on a new "near peer" threat?

We've had a lot of "stuff" in the planning box for this "near peer" (glad I didn't say Near Beer) for a long time. A lot of that had to do with sizing the military to do two "majors" at the same time. That would be the 600 ship Navy size. Problem is we're about at 3/4-1 of a major contingency capacity now. That ability is fragile with the aging airframes, hulls, etc. We don't have the legs at this point to do a sustained major effort. So the technology gap is closing. Got it. It's a matter of what the Country wants to invest and pay for. The services are well aware of all the threats. Near Peer, pipsqueaks who punch above their weight, the crazies, you name it. We report upline what we are capable of doing and work our training, staffing, systems, etc. towards optimizing for the risks out there. We can't cover all the bases because our resources are capped. The best thing would be to remember the Marine's secondary slogan: Semper Gumby. So we're headed to that well known repetitive cycle of not being prepared, having to suffer more while we build up again, get the job done again, and forget about it all again.

Training full spectrum or direct action doesn't mean we abandon all else. Fighting a DA against a near peer requires whole other skill sets you don't do in the advise and assist; COIN; and what else we've been doing since 2003. FOBs....say good bye to them.

What we should be doing is training for all possible avenues of fighting. To be flexible to be able to engage the enemy no matter what they be and their capabilities are.