Cutting the budget: Why is the DoD the only department taking a hit?

The Secretary of Defense has come out with his plan to implement cuts to the military.  Are there places to cut the military?  Yes.  Should the military be the only department cut in the federal government?  Absolutely not.  Are some of the justifications for the cuts such as rising personnel costs exaggerated for effect?  Certainly.  See this earlier blog post from Lamentations 5 on the true impact of the DoD on the Federal Budget and the real impact of military personnel costs. 
Despite the mish-mash of truth and falsehood in the Secretary of Defense's statement, the bottom line is that it is a lot more palatable to the administration to deprive our troops benefits(by the way, benefits they have worked and often bled for) then it is to tackle the real problem which is entitlement spending and the much larger voting bloc that is the recipient of those benefits.  It doesn't matter one iota if the DoD is entirely eliminated, the bottom line is that it is entitlement spending that is eating up the budget and doing so at a voracious pace.
As a final note, who thinks it is a good comparison to describe the cuts to forces as moving towards pre-WWII levels?  If I remember correctly, that did nothing to stop WWII from occurring.