@ pr00ne.
You are completely right that Defence took a smaller hit in the Comprehensive Spending Review but a little bit of context is appropriate. Defence has had little growth in its real budget in the last 20 years and the growth it has had has not kept pace with inflation in Defence costs. Consequently there have been cuts in every Planning Round as far back as I can remember. By contrast both Health and Education have benefitted from very significant expansion in their budgets - much of which has not translated into increased output; take a look at the budgets of Defence, Education, Health and Social Services in 1989 and take another look at them in 2010 to see the point. The output of the Armed Forces has undeniably increased very significantly over the last 20 years but we are now at the point where resources and commitments don't match.
There is plenty which could still be done to cut costs but the areas to look at are the business costs imposed by Government in the form of 'red tape'. This is an area which has undeniably expanded massively especially over the last decade and could be radically cut back. The answer then is to take another look at what is important and what is not - and stop doing that which we can't afford any more. If the government were cutting costs in that way - there would I think be some logic to the cuts, and they might even be welcomed. Instead we are focussed on cutting the means of output without actually cutting the commitment (indeed our commitments just got bigger, again). It is here that criticism should lie.