I understand where the professor is coming from, and it's very logical. Having said that, it's really tough to predict what the future might bring, so you have to have a certain amount of flexibility in the suite of cards that you can play.
Of course, let's not forget the value of diplomacy, a comprehensively staffed and engaged diplomatic corps, and international assistance. That other leg of the stool, if you will, is the defence or deterrence capability. There may come a time, five or 10 years from now, when you want to focus on the UN, which means, more often than not, land-centric. Maybe you want to contribute to a force in NATO, which is usually land-centric, with some air and some sea.
Sovereignty demands a much greater focus on surveillance, which is satellites—which is air force—and then, of course, things that are on the surface of the water and underneath, which is essentially navy. You still have to have soldiers there, but in vastly smaller numbers than you might need for other operations.
You have to have flexibility when you build your force to cater to differing missions. It's a balance that you strike. Right now, I would submit, like the professor said, we're not doing anything terribly well.