An economist can argue—with the same persuasiveness as those who argue that “pinpoint”-delivered small-yield weapons are just another form of artillery—that equipment and manpower are fungible resources in a military campaign, that air intervention is not “really” different from ground intervention, that military intellect is as important as leg muscle for troops that lack leadership and planning skill. The controversy about redefinition of service functions in the light of modern weapons, and about the usefulness of defining military-service functions in terms of the means of locomotion, suggests that an air-ground distinction or a naval-ground distinction rests on nothing but tradition. But the point of all this is that, in limiting war, tradition matters.

XREF: Connects to debates about defense procurement and joint service doctrine in contemporary military thinking and organizational theory.

Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, loc. 595