No, which is why I referenced the need for armed forces.
Cyber can shut down your economy, it can make you power and fuel plants explode. It can make your armament depots make tiny, but critical changes to undermine your weapons or armour. It can make your C4 work for us and not you. You might win the battle, but we win the war.
Again, though... you may be turning out the lights and messing with supermarket distribution in the enemy's homeland, but if a thousand peasants with AKMs (bayonets fixed) with a week's worth of rice in their bergens, supported by obsolete T-55s and BM-21s and D-30s, just rousted you out of your HQ, you done lost the war, Jack; they'll win first and sort out the domestics later.
And, as someone involved on the periphery... cyber is not a "insert money, collect victory" option. One major problem is that when we say "okay, we can shut down Nastyland's power grid-" the immediate response is "but their children won't be able to do their homework! Think of the human rights!"
It's an addition we need to deal with and defend against, it's important, it's paying (part of) my salary - but while it's necessary, it's not sufficient.
The problem is that while we're at least making some efforts towards "cyber"... we've let many of the actual warfighting capabilities slip from our grasp in the Land domain. Cyber doesn't help when your adversary outguns and outnumbers you, and is falling back to simple VHF voice radio when we mess with their more modern comms.