US: Military strategy based on business strategy?

In his essay "The end of the Bush Revolution" (published June 2006) Philip H Gordon argues that the Bush administration, despite keeping the rethoric of war on terror and the ideology that America has moral right to show the liberalism and democracy down peoples throats whether they want in or not, have, in fact modified its approach and, behind the scenes takes more conciliatory approach, trying diplomacy and making overtures to mend the bridges with Europe. "America is at war ... Axil of evil..." has been replaced with "US will continue to rally the world " . This softening of approach is in retreat since the Israel attacked Lebanon. America had no option but to support Israel and must have been aghast to realise that Hezbullah have an upper hand. Iran's and Syria's posturing while entirely predictable must grate badly. It will be interesting if re-activation of neocon-pur "America is at war, Iran is a clear enemy of US interests " will win against the american public's and world's revulsion against so called collateral damage inflicted on Lebanese people. Frederic W. Kagan in an essay in periodical Foreign Affair describes the recent approach of the neocon military strategists responsible for distribution of funds to various military sections of the Pentagon. The business acumen requires that the product bringing the best returns should be expanded at the expense of the less profitable product. This is hardly revolutionary. Using this logic in the military milleau can be quite disastrous. US has been pouring funds into high tech military hardware, especially aircraft and information gathering systems, while cutting down on actual soldiers and ground support. The problem with this choice of priorities is obvious to anyone who heard of Hannibal and his "victory" over Roman Empire or seen VietCom withstand US might and Hezbollah virtually untouched in its warrens spanning the south Lebanon. The point is that destroying military targets and destroying country infrastructure is NOT a military victory per se. To win the war, the loosers must accept the authority of the victors on the level of government and administration. Hence Israel did not "win" the 1967 war - they are still fighting it every day.