The Administration's record to date is undeniable. Defense was targeted from day one in office, and Mr. Obama disguised his latest, steepest retrenchment as part of a new "strategic review" earlier this month. The Pentagon on Thursday previewed the cuts, announcing that the 2013 defense budget due next month will decline for the first time since 1998. As spending on entitlements rises, budget cuts disproportionately hit the Pentagon, which accounts for a fifth of federal spending but over half the deficit reduction.
It's a good summation of why gutting the Navy (and the other branches) instead of smartly enhancing their ships, vehicles and systems, is a tragically bad idea...like Admiral Kimmell bad.
Make no mistake, we ARE in an arms race. And, unless you want to concede a large part of the world and become isolationist with a nice of dose of huge inflation, we need to be able to project force rapidly and effectively.
Update: For a somewhat of a counter-argument, Michael E. O'Hanlon of Brookings writes a post in the WSJ advocating for smaller cuts but a one-war front mentality in the SecDef's office:
...Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s new strategic guidance, unveiled Thursday, moves in this direction, stating that the future U.S. military “will be capable of defeating a major act of aggression in one theater while denying the objectives of — or imposing unacceptable costs on — an opportunistic aggressor in a second theater.” Panetta and President Obama are right to reduce the requirements for a second possible war, which in this era would probably not be a ground war in any case...