Use it as a justification to defend their existing programs.
You need to understand that the budget isn’t just something done once at a specific time of the year. It’s in constant flux, folks are always after a piece of your Total Obligating Authority (TOA), every program/project/weapon system is constantly being audited and having to prove it’s relevance on an almost daily basis to protect its funding. There are always emergent priorities and situations where folks at every level are looking for funding.
For example, in the budget cycle after the president submits to congress in february, they and their staffers review it and put in ‘plus-ups’. They have until September (if they pass the appropriatons and authorizations bills on time) to mess around with the budget. The Pentagon hates ‘plus-ups’ because they aren’t an increase to TOA, the vast majority of ‘plus-ups’ don’t give the DoD additional funds. They direct the DoD to shift funds within their TOA to a specific program or project a congressman likes. So, somebody’s program has to get cut to pay that bill. The cascading affects of delays to that program have to be accounted for, what won’t be delivered or will be delayed- how will it eventually affect war-fighting plans etc.
So, the Pentagon and the various programs defend their budgets by doing everything they can to demonstrate relevance-- putting in and using the latest ‘flavor of the month’ and ‘buzzwords’ that the administration and civilian’s leadership have shown to be a concern to them. If you say you want to drive a nail, everybody will tell you their project is a hammer.