Hey, here's an idea, instead of reducing military funding for technology upgrades and the number of troops, how about we cut out a ton of civilian positions instead? Oh right, we can't! Why is that? Because you can't fire DoD civilians without a mountain of paperwork thanks to all-powerful (or nearly so) public sector unions. Thanks JFK, thanks. It's easy to boot people out of the military, just wait until their enlistment is up in a couple of years at the worst.
DoD civilians have a tendency to stick around until they die, or FINALLY retire, and their paychecks are many times larger than their military equivalents. Wouldn't it make more sense to just keep active duty personnel than to pay someone twice as much as a civilian? Not only would it cost less, but it would prevent a stagnation of ideas due to people who have been there for 30+ years refusing to change their ways regardless how well they work (or don't work).
DoD Budget "Casualties"
The Washington Times doesn't even mention why until the very end of the article, where people are paying less attention. That should have been one of the first sentences, but we wouldn't want to anger those unions now would we?