It seems clear it is not universal, given OCSteve's cite of the commander of the Walter Reed facility's willingness to take full responsibility for the problems there.

By G'Quan, is there nowhere in the universe I can go without you following me Mollari?

I included Nell's comment because of her apparent agreement with your comment regarding the design of the Army, but you are correct that I concur with her conclusion if not the details which led to there. As to your questions, let us say that I choose to post this way for personal reasons and leave it at that, if you will.

Gary: The entire structure of our current military, with the bulk being Reserves and Guard units, wasn't designed for long-term sustained use.[...] Nell: And it was purposely designed this way in the wake of the Viet Nam debacle, in the hope/expectation that it would prevent future administrations from waging wars that did not have the support of the U.S. population. I am not certain this is correct. I am unable to find a cite for this at the moment, but I believe that the Army redesign begun by General Abrams was to prevent the military from going to war without using the National Guard and Reserves in order to prevent wars like Vietnam. General Abrams believed that if reservists would have to be called up to support any major operation, it would discourage future Presidents from getting involved in military conflicts that did not enjoy widespread support. As for the notion the military is not designed for sustained conflict, I am not certain what would lead to that conclusion. Unless one is able to amass significant reserves in men and materiel prior during peacetime, all military forces must depend on their governments to properly fund them to replace losses. This strikes me as less a design flaw than a fact of life. If the military is not given the resources to not only fight a war, but to regenerate combat power as necessary while the fight is going on, it will break eventually no matter how it is designed.