$460B military bill omits war funds

"WASHINGTON - House and Senate negotiators agreed Tuesday on a $460 billion Pentagon bill that bankrolls pricey weapons systems and bomb-resistant vehicles for troops, but does not pay for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071106/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=Ahve7_cpDwlHBrIivI1RahSs0NUE)

Ah, yes - more high-priced high-tech weapons systems.
When will they ever learn?

The Pentagon is addicted to high-tech weapons systems. SOME of them MAY have been appropriate when we contemplated fighting the Soviet Army.

Three recent experiences suggest that high-tech doesn't win today's wars:
1. U.S. in Afghanistan: yeah, we chased the Taliban out with cruise missiles and bombs... but they're back. We have yet to win the war. Why? No boots on the ground. Osama got away - cruise missiles & bombs didn't get him. How'd he get away? We relied on small U.S. ground force + smaller contingent of friendly Afghan allies.
2. U.S. in Iraq. Yeah, cruise missiles and bombs drove Saddam from power... leaving a power vacuum now being filled by militias, 'insurgents' of various flavors, and chaos. Why? High-tech weapons don't win wars. Winning this war (and the one in Afghanistan) required establishing order and controlling the population while civil & political order was established - boots on ground needed, but absent.
3. Israel in Lebanon (summer, 2006). Yeah, Israel missiles & bombs destroyed lots of Lebanese infrastructure, but who won the war? Hezbollah. Again - 'winning' in this case means imposing one's will on the population, which high-tech weapons systems cannot do.

The Rumsfeld Doctrine is dead, but we continue to build high-tech weapons systems of limited utility. Why?