This conflict between the need to prepare for two different kindns of war at once -- the "conventional" and the "guerilla", has stymied other nations in the past. There is no simple answer to the problems posed. France, for example, had two different armies (though naturally with some overlap) for much of the 20th Century -- the 'Metropolitan' which focused on conventional warfare with major opponents (first Germany, then the USSR) and the 'Colonial', which focused on guerilla/peacekeeping overseas and in the territories.

Despite this the French were defeated in Vietnam and Algeria, and some of the 'specialist' forces became a threat to the nation itself.

tried to prevent future continental engagements by simply not having an army that could fight it: they focused on expeditionary forces to hold together their empire, and consciously prevented the development of forces that could be used in Europe. It really did not work out so well.

Sometimes you just have to be well rounded so that your forces can adapt to the circumstances: you don't get to choose the nature of your next war.

after all this time it has slowlely dawned on me that the muslim menin thes conflicts are bullies to their women and turn their children into bombs no western logic will ever figure this out