I may be wrong, but now that the story has been suitably disowned, people seem to be arguing more over the proposed defence review.
There are two problems.
One, is that the present review (SDR) which the forces are nominally working under stressed various roles which included for the navy a mainly Amphibious support role with various other oddities, based on two "small" or one "medium" commitment.
Two, whilst this is still officially the line, the Iraq invasion and Afghanistan have come along and both ravaged the defence budgets (despite political statements to the contrary) and also squewed the defence acquisitions and short-term plans.
Some people here seem to be "preparing for the last war" in their ideas, in as much as they purely look at Afghanistan as the be-all-and-end-all of defence planning. Obviously in the short-term it is, but a proper defence review should look past "the last war" and decide what is needed next time around.
I thought that SDR got it about right, but events mean that taking into considerations the need to replace worn-out kit, that it is unlikely that the UK will be able to cover as much capability as SDR.
What will have to go will be mainly a political decision, but IF I had to GUESS I would say that the electorate are going to come away from Afghanistan with a very loud consensus of "never again". Iraq never was popular, and Afghanistan was foisted upon the populace under false pretensions. I think any ideas of major commitments as opposed to "raids" (by air, sea or land) is going to have to be watered right down. So, my GUESS would be that Air and Sea strike will be strengthened, together with special forces, but that the Army will be sold short after essential replacement of worn-out kit. The real cuts will be in "support" services for all three services.
Remember "Afghanistan" is the "last war" - a defence review has to prepare for future wars.
.