Yeah, so I was completely off-base with my "conclusion." Dunlap's article is a lot more complex than I remember from ten years ago, before I had actually gotten into military theory, history, and COIN. So maybe this would be a better conclusion.
In fact, in re-reading the article, I realized there is a lot to wrap my head around, and I think it might actually serve as good of a discussion today as it did in 1992. Not that I think he's right on everything, there seems to be a very strong similarity between his statements and those of people like Gian Gentile who object to the focus on COIN in the Army. In fact, the conclusions Dunlap and Gentile both make about the focus on non-traditional maneuver combat in the Army are pretty much exactly the same. I think, though, that they miss a couple things. Unfortunately, I'm having a bit of a brain-fry at the moment, and I can't really think about this enough to express it well. Give me a few days, I'll have a better post.