You misunderstand. My point was that your attribution of motivation...
> The footsoldiers were unable to think for themselves, unable to adapt/improvise, and unable to organize anything other than suicide charges.
... is overly simplistic.
The soldiers were not necessarily unable to think of alternatives: they were doctrinally taught to reject those alternatives in favor of frontal assaults. They, their superiors, their superiors' superiors.
So "Japanese soldiers were unable to innovate" does not follow from "Japanese soldiers were prone to conducting frontal assaults."
"Japanese military doctrine in the 1930s strongly discouraged lower-level innovation" would be a more accurate statement, without attempting to tie it to capability.
> The footsoldiers were unable to think for themselves, unable to adapt/improvise, and unable to organize anything other than suicide charges.
... is overly simplistic.
The soldiers were not necessarily unable to think of alternatives: they were doctrinally taught to reject those alternatives in favor of frontal assaults. They, their superiors, their superiors' superiors.
So "Japanese soldiers were unable to innovate" does not follow from "Japanese soldiers were prone to conducting frontal assaults."
"Japanese military doctrine in the 1930s strongly discouraged lower-level innovation" would be a more accurate statement, without attempting to tie it to capability.