A full scale ground war is unlikely in the current environment, but it wouldn't take a lot to change that (I think COVID-19 is showing how fragile many things are that we don't normally think about).
Given all the factors that go in, the military acquisition process is actually fairly efficient. Indeed, government in general is relatively efficient in more cases than people think. Particularly people who work in big business are quite familiar with the inefficiencies in it. Large bureaucracies naturally contain inefficiency. The Government is a VERY large bureaucracy, and it still manages many things more efficiently than the private sector. But it doesn't turn profits, so people think it isn't working (notwithstanding that the government's job isn't to turn a profit).
Because of the taxpayer's concern for budgets, one of the ways in which government is inefficient is the requirement (in most cases) that the government buys from the low bidder. This is true in DOD, but also throughout most of government. I was on the sidelines for a massive infrastructure project where one bidder had completed Phase I, below budget and ahead of schedule, with a better-than-expected safety record. Nonetheless, that bidder lost Phase II despite submitted a bid less than 1% higher than the winning bidder. That is an example of where the desire for low government spending almost certainly ended up costing the government more. Few businesses would ever make that decision. Anyway, I digress (a little).
The question of whether a military branch "wants" a system, base, etc. is also fraught. Generally it's not whether the military wants the thing, it's a question of how high a priority it is for the branch. The Army wants a next generation tank to replace the M1 variants (currently working on A3), but when Congress tells it to expect a certain amount of money for procurement, the new tank isn't high enough on the priority list to make the cut. The Air Force recognizes the need for a next generation close air support aircraft (i.e., to replace the A-10), but when it looks at the role We the People expect USAF to execute, that CAS airframe isn't high enough on the priority list to make the cut.
For a long time now the stated goal of the US Military was to be able to respond to two significant military crises at the same time (e.g., southwest Asia and Korea). That demands a lot of resources. Re-thinking that may be worthwhile (and is happening all the time, I think). We are also currently operating with some really old technology throughout the services. The Army's "new" transport helicopter has been in service since the 80s. The M1 came on line in the late 70s (granted, both have been upgraded, but many of those upgrades have been computer systems). The Army's "heavy" transport helicopter has been in service since the 1960s! Same with the Air Force--while it has the F-22 and F-35, the F-15s and 16s have been in service since (I think) the early 80s (maybe late 70s); and we really don't have a fleet of heavy bombers--the B52 first flew in 1952!
Nonetheless, for 35 years the US has been unchallenged on a traditional battlefield (whether ground, air, or sea).
Russia's annexation of the Crimea has the military (and policy makers) much more concerned with traditional battlefields, and China's buildup of a deepwater navy--which primarily serves as a vehicle for force projection--gives another cause for real concern about future conflict/battlefields. War with China versus war with Russia look much different from a planning/operational perspective.
Ok, but turning back to a different, if related, comment above: returning primary food and manufacturing production to the United States would take a major government intervention and would be a massive assault on the fundamentals of free-market capitalism that have been the basis for U.S. economic expansion since, essentially, the end of WWII. That is radical, leftist thinking. Seriously.
In a wartime environment, the U.S. would likely be able to shift food and manufacturing production to the home front, as required, but it wouldn't be nimble. Of course, each one of our likely competitors would have the same problem.
