SasLess - That's a pre-election story, and it cites the Progressive Caucus. JTO's references reflect Planet Reality.
I've seen Adam Smith speak, and he makes more sense than most of the outgoing GOP chairs, who tend to talk about things like the "355-ship Navy" without explaining what ships those should be. (In practice, Navy-by-the-numbers means building more fundamentally flawed LCSs while the naval architecture bureaucracy figures out how to screw up an imported design.) The recent Congressional Commission report follows the same practice - nowhere does it ask "what can we do less of, to do more of something else?"
Historically, real strategic change has meant making sacrifices. For example, the USAF built up vast bomber and interceptor forces in the 1950s at the expense of Army modernization and surface combatants, and lost most of them by the early 1970s. Today, the resistance to any such trades is more powerful than ever, as witness the fate of Air-Sea Battle. It's not a good trend.