Too often the discussion in Washingon of this and other "big people" topics tends to be about the rules accepted for re-arranging the deck chairs rather than basic issues. This reflects the degree to which the foreign policy and defense affairs cliques now dominate the processes.

The armed services' lobbying activities further complicate the effort. Oh, don't tell me that the services do not lobby the Congress. The do, even on behalf of their favorite projects and contractors. If you want to call it "liaison," feel free to do so.

We need to reduce the budget deficit radically. We need to be safe from foreign enemies.

To do that we need to get rid of the Bush tax cuts and let "job creators" struggle along in the way that Buffett recommends. We also need to stop fighting major wars of choice overseas however satisfying and profitable they have been for some. Take a break, folks, ten years or so to think things over and re-construct the ground forces and the lives of thse who have fought.

We are essentially an island nation. It is three thousand miles to England and far more distant to the far side of the Pacific. The enemies we may face in the next 10 odd years will not require land mass warfare in other than auxiliary campaign on the far shores. Air and naval forces are appropriate for the major and perhaps even "existential" threats that we are likely to face. The ongoing nasty little threats are CT threats. We are now well positioned to deal with these.

All of this is apparent to voters and taxpayers.

1 - We need to save a lot of money.

2- A reduction in land forces is approriate.

The question implies that outcomes in this matter will be determined by "musical chairs," lobbying and "studies" by "research institutes."

No. Reality has arrived in Washington and reality will dictate that the defense hawks will not have their way unless they can persuade the public to give up the social safety net in order to pay for their dreams of war.

More military capability equates to more security for the Unite States. This precept is so deeply embedded in our minds that there is no need to state it. Yet it may be false. Let’s consider the following. If we did not possess a mighty high-tech military, we may never have considered invading and occupying Iraq. Since the ramifications of that action clearly are negative for American security, then there is a negative correlation between capability and security. The same holds for our protracted occupation of Afghanistan and subsequent incursion into Pakistan. Then there the contemplated war against Iran – unimaginable if we lacked deep penetration bombs and assorted other state-of-the-art weaponry.

Now we are faced with an audacious plan to give the central role for advancing American interests (very broadly defined) to Special Operations Command under the aggressive leadership of Admiral William H. McRaven who directs our Special Forces. As outlined in today’s New York Times, he is in the final stages of mounting a detailed plan for using his 60,000 personnel as a multi-purpose, semi-autonomous force operating on every continent except Antarctica. It will be designated the military’s tool of choice not only to fight insurgencies. SOC will be mandated to do active intelligence gathering, to engage if political penetration of other countries and governments, to undertake training and liaison with foreign militaries, and address underlying conditions that spark insurgencies.

Raven modestly admits that “we’re not yet ready….to run the global war on terror.” We must wait awhile for that happy day to arrive. Moreover, the Admiral wants the authority to make independent decisions when and where to deploy Special Forces without going through standard Pentagon procedures. Where is the State Department and other Executive Branch agencies in all this? Eclipsed. The State Department has yet even to be briefed on the plan that bears the formidable name of Global SOF Alliance.

All this will be enabled by a healthy increase in budget and personnel. The other enabling factor is the feebleness of civilian leadership from the White House on down which continues to fail at providing strategic guidance to the Pentagon.

I’m rooting for a smaller defense budget and the reduced capabilities that would result. This is not a fixed principle. It is merely pragmatism. We simply do not have a civilian or military leadership that can be counted on to use it sensibly, prudently and responsibly.

The defense budget for FY 2013 is already on ice. The deal was done last August, so the FY 2013 defense number has already been accepted, by the Congress and by the White House. There is not likely to be a lot of debate about it; maybe there will even be an appropriation before the end of the next fiscal year.

The McKeons, McCains, and Grahams of the world have been tilting at the long-term defense plan for several months now. They want to protect defense for a sequester, due in January next year. They have even introduced a bill to do so, which was immediately swept aside where it matters, in the Senate, by the Democratic leadership. Tilt as they will, their effort is doomed to failure this year.

It is doomed because this is an election year and the budget and the economy are what is on people's minds, not the defense budget. A deal on the budget awaits the election outcome. Once that is clear, all the elements of a deal are waiting in the wings: the payroll tax extension, the need for further growth in the debt ceiling, the immanent expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the doctor's Medicare fix, unemployment compensation extension, and, yes, a looming sequester on discretionary spending across the board.

In other words, everything will be on the table, just where it has been for the last two years, waiting for a deal. And the Congress will be lame duck, maybe the President, too. Just the right mix for a deal. Might be what Congress does so well - boot the issue down the road for another year - might be for longer. But for a negotiation to take place everything has to be on the table. So tilt away, so-called defenders of defense. There are bigger fish to fry, but not until the fall.