I think we've chatted enough on this forum that you know that isn't my style.
You say you are sharing your opinion.
I'm sharing mine as someone who was trained as a FAC and although I thankfully have never been in that position on the ground, I have responded to requests for air support before, so I do feel my opinion has some weight to it.
I'd ask you if you feel you have that same perspective. I'd ask you based on what experience or information on which you would base the comment from you which I quoted from your post.
I'm sure that if I gave an emotional, and what you would consider unreasonable responses, to some questions regarding Evergreen or the B747 that you would endeavor to give me your opinion as well - whether I thought it was grand standing too.

While I certainly share your cynicism about military leadership and the role of the defense industry, this is off base. The understanding of what is the threat today isn't driven by a small clutch of stars. It's informed by a ton of analysis, intelligence, modeling, and input that often comes at the O-3/O-4 level. DOD resources are best directed toward platforms such as the F-15/F-18 which have a lot of useful life left and bring more to the fight than the A-10.

I do agree, those are the biggest threats to our nation and our military needs to be prepared for them. However in the last 50 years, we haven't fought another nation like those. The battles of the last half century are more akin to guerilla warfare such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. Do we need the tools to fight one type of war or the other, or both?

I have recently read a couple of statements about the US military I find amusing:

The US military is the only one in the world that downplays its abilities, most other nations overstate their abilities.

The US military has always had to exercise restraint. Heaven help those in the way it if they are ever let off the leash.

While I certainly share your cynicism about military leadership and the role of the defense industry, this is off base. The understanding of what is the threat today isn't driven by a small clutch of stars. It's informed by a ton of analysis, intelligence, modeling, and input that often comes at the O-3/O-4 level. DOD resources are best directed toward platforms such as the F-15/F-18 which have a lot of useful life left and bring more to the fight than the A-10.

Afghanistan was a coat hanger abortion. It wasn’t just the withdrawal. It was the 20+ years of fairy tale BS. Most people, including myself, have a hard time believing the same people in the DoD that abdicated responsibility will “get it right” on the next war. The DoD did a large amount of the fumbling with the strategy in Afghanistan. We had extreme technological overmatch with the Taliban and AQ, yet here we are. For future’s sake the debrief of Afghanistan needs to be extremely objective if we’re even to have a shot at whatever is in the future.

I do agree, those are the biggest threats to our nation and our military needs to be prepared for them. However in the last 50 years, we haven't fought another nation like those. The battles of the last half century are more akin to guerilla warfare such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. Do we need the tools to fight one type of war or the other, or both?

I have recently read a couple of statements about the US military I find amusing:

The US military is the only one in the world that downplays its abilities, most other nations overstate their abilities.

The US military has always had to exercise restraint. Heaven help those in the way it if they are ever let off the leash.

Neither of the CINCs involved did, as evidenced by the original withdrawal negotiations with the Taliban. Pre-announcing the withdrawal date a year in advance wasn't a genius move.