The current military is structured to fight pitched tank, infantry, and air battles against large enemies, backed up by artillery and airpower, with large, relatively slow ground forces. That made sense when your probable enemy was a superpower, and before you had precision weapons.
But what we’ve learned in the last decade and a half is that it’s really, really important to move fast, be able to deploy rapidly, and that precision bombs and missiles, coupled with excellent situational awareness, make a lot of difference. Thus the transformation to a lighter, faster, more agile military.
Look at the wars the U.S. is engaged in now, in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have heard that the Americans in Afghanistan really lusted after Canada’s “Coyote” armored vehicle (and are getting them now - the ‘Stryker’ is the American version of the Coyote". Tanks are still useful when you have to move into very dangerous areas, but they are also increasingly vulnerable to missiles and mines when they are forced to move slowly or stop in confined areas. They are also very expensive, require immense logistical support, and take a long time to move into battle.
A Stryker brigade can be deployed rapidly, has a good amount of firepower (especially when coupled with close air support), and can do things like roam around mountainous areas and through urban areas with ease. It doesn’t need a logistical tail like heavy tanks do. You can airlift far more Strykers into a region than you can heavy tanks, and you can use smaller aircraft that are easier to get in and out of unimproved strips.
The model for the typical engagement the U.S. military goes into in the future isn’t a large-scale tank war on the open desert, but numerous deployments into trouble spots in Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
However, it’s still important to remember that China and Russia and France and other big powers are still around, so you still need to maintain the capability to field heavy armor. Just not as much.