This is a radical change from the past where Stability Operations was usually relegated to an afterthought; more of a have-to than a want-to. That's not saying we have not done Stability Operations in the past. In recent memory Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti and Kosovo are all examples of the U.S. Army participating in high profile Stability Operations. I'll be one of the first to admit that none of those were shining example of Stability Operations done right (although props to the Bosnia folks, I believe that is the best of the bunch).
More interesting to me is the reaction of the Senators on the panel:
Both Lieberman and Cornyn were concerned about how the Army could support and
budget for such a wide spectrum of operations, but Cornyn congratulated the
military for its ability to successfully perform so many missions.
Really, this comes down to dollars. If we're saying that for the foreseeable future war is uncertain and we must be prepared for all contingincies then I'm reading that as a request for a bigger force and more dollars. This would be a relief to an Army stretched by continuous and lengthy deployment.