I don't disagree with anything said above on this thread, however I despair that it seems that nothing will persuade those in power from any party to take defence seriously - what will it take? Some humiliating catastrophe of a defeat?
In fairness to those in power, more often than not, the Army's been its own worst enemy - to the extent that our core doctrine downplays the importance of mass almost to the point of irrelevance, and our charismatic SF are forever whispering into the ears of impressionable ministers about how a few well-placed individuals can do the work of a Division (I exaggerate to make a point, but not by much).
The idea of 'punching above our weight' and 'doing more with less' is never far from the lips of those who should know better and what are the politicians to do if they're hearing this nonsense from individuals who are, after all, supposed to be the informed professionals?
No-one likes spending money on defence as there are few votes in it. Witnessing the brainless enthusiasm with which the military grasped the chance to play in Iraq (According to to Gordon Carrera in "M16 - Life and Death in the British Secret Service", the then CDS told Blair that he would have a real problem with the Army if they were not involved) and Helmand, the politicians could be forgiven for underestimating the problem and giving in to the temptation of defence cuts/under-funding.
The Army needs to become more politically savvy (in a positive way, not in a "let's stitch up the RAF and RN" sort of way) and those who lead it need to learn how to say 'no' when 'no' is the right answer.