If America's military services are all supposed to be on the same side, why are they so different? This soldier/scholar's answer, nicely done, is their institutional histories and personalities. The young American republic determined that its commerce required a permanent navy, but would raise an army only if and as circumstances required. The doctrines of the two services were sharply different: combined arms for the army meant discretion at low levels but centralization at the top; the navy by contrast centered authority in ship captains, with more decentralization at the top. What is needed is a "strategic paradigm" that would unify these separate perspectives born of distinct operational requirements.
