Cold war was well before my time, but I know what you're getting at CSAR is only one subset of the PR umbrella.
Part of the problem is the joint definition of RMC is vague and based solely on that definition the AF standard Sandy package is the best answer that fits that definition across the broadest threat spectrum, as it should be. However, as an example Sandy2 is a FAC(A) why? The Marine WTI I worked with swore up and down that a FAC(A) was not required for cross FSCL CSAR since there was no GFC to require close coordination with and SCAR-C was what they were really doing. Once again, Sandy for the win over a broader spectrum as not all CSAR events will be past the FSCL. But you can see where the argument could be made for differing skill sets filling the role in certain circumstances.
If there's a rescue mission, someone has to be in command of said mission doesn't that make them RMC? I'd argue that we need to establish when a Sandy1 is required, when a Jolly1 would suffice, etc. Then we can say "In scenario X, we have to deploy A-10s to sit CSAR alert." or "This threat level is acceptable for a properly trained RV to act as RMC if given the appropriate supporting players." I know you're saying that I can call it RMC but it isn't, I'd argue that Sandy1 is more than "just" RMC.
No argument on that last point I quoted and by no means am I suggesting we should change our paradigm from our current CSARTF construct, it works and is the standard for good reason. I'm only saying that as a community (including Hog guys) we need to train to the contingency that it isn't an option, and know based on training to that standard when we can and cannot execute with less than the optimal solution, that goes for loss of all Sandys and a partial Sandy package.