Of course he is, but what's different about him compared to the rest.
Agreed, he's a classic career politician with little specialist knowledge on
any topic. When it comes to the Armed Forces and any decisions made he relies totally on the briefings he is given by Whitehall mandarins and, to a lesser extent, the CDS and respective forces chiefs - you only had to listen to some of the twaddle he peddled around SDSR time to realise that.
In his defence you can't really expect a man in his position with such a wide remit of responsibility to grasp the finer details of the
impacts that result from, for example, cutting individual aircraft types.
In most cases the decisions are financially led and he will be given a choice of cuts to make from which he, ultimately, must choose the least worst option - based on the briefing notes he's been handed.
Bit of a no-win situation - particularly when it turns out that "events" occur which were never considered at the time the decisions were made.
IMO I think he's trying, generally, to be pragmatic and realistic - unlike his direct predecessor who was both dogmatic and idealistic.
All my opinion of course.