Is the US Army relevant in the near term?

National Defense Blog has a titillating article on the relevance of the US Army in the near term and a interesting view of the Air-Sea Battle concept in general.  Definitely worth the read.  Check it out here but a tidbit.

Another topic of discussion was how the Army would maintain its presence in strategic areas of the world, such as Asia, when it will have fewer foreign bases and most of its forces will be stateside.
This concern harkens back to the late 1990s, when the Army feared for its relevance as its forces were deemed to slow and heavy to deploy to urgent crises. For a U.S.-based force, the ability to rapidly move troops is “going to be a problem for the Army,” said Steven Metz, a strategist at the Army War College.
Another theme that emerged from the seminar is the notion that, barring a major war, the Army might not be needed, or even wanted, in many parts the world. In Africa, for instance, foreign allies typically need help building roads, hospitals or assistance in humanitarian relief, but they do not always welcome U.S. military presence. “How to you work with someone who needs you but doesn't want you?” asked Lt. Col. Thomas Talley, an advisor at U.S. Africa Command.

A few points just jump out at me.

First we're back to transformation.  God help us we're back to Rumsfield's transformation.  Air-Sea Battle smacks of it.

Second, we have a US Army that's still too damn heavy!  The JLTV that's being pushed on the Marine Corps is the most obvious example of it.  The double hulled Stryker is another example.  Lastly the biggest villain is the Ground Combat Vehicle.  US Army procurement today is killing it for tomorrow.

Lastly the US Army is extremely relevant, just not in the way that it wants.  Its relevance is in its Soldiers.  They need to make a strong move back to its old format of a couple of Divisions of Light Infantry.  Change the 25th back to Light Fighters.  Make the 1st ID Light Fighters.  You get the idea.  Heck even consider an additional Air Assault Division but understand that a heavily mechanized force with little balance is not the way forward...especially if you're going to have to fight world wide....not just the desert but in the jungles and mountains too.

UPDATE!
B. Smitty hit on something and it got me to thinking.  The warfare in Afghanistan for the past decade has sowed the seeds of success for the US Army.  How?  By forcing them to operate as essentially motorized infantry.  Stryker brigades deploy without their Strykers and operate out of MRAPs.    And just like with HUMVEEs or more specifically with the failed 9th ID motorized experiment, when your infantry just uses the vehicle as transports and are less wedded to them then they have a chance of maintaining infantry proficiency.  If the Army is to be mechanized then lets adjust and have a portion motorized instead.