You're right, @Right_in_Virginia, since the military is reported to not be in a state of readiness, Cruz shouldn't have suggested a military response.....or, something. 
The Pentagon is known for "cooking the books" on readiness, to get more funding. I was a Battalion Supply Officer my last year and a half in Germany, I was in the same battalion for 4 1/2 years. I was a platoon leader and maintenance officer at one of the batteries for two years, before getting booted to HQ.
Within a month of taking over as maintenance officer, my motor sergeant and I took an honest look at every vehicle in the battery, resulting in a four page deadline report. To say the fecal matter hit the fan was an understatement.
I coined an acronym for equipment that had more than 4 material deficiencies: MFB, or M----r F-----r's Broke. Battalion didn't see the humor in my acronym.
For a battery to be considered "combat ready", 75% of our weapons systems had to be operational. To reach that level, in the weekend before our tac eval, it was necessary to swap systems, i.e. remove a good system from a bad track, and swap it with a bad system on a good track. That operation normally took several hours to complete, and our maintenance bays were not large enough to do it indoors. My guys had to do it outside in 40 degree weather, with a gentle 20 mph breeze and intermittent rain.
Here's a picture of the system I'm talking about:
A combat arms unit can be classified as "non-combat ready" for a variety of reasons, to include shortage of personnel, or insufficient training metrics.
My last battalion commander inherited a C-3 (marginally combat ready) battalion. In 18 months, he drove us to a C-1, partly because he approved discharges for over 60 marginal performing soldiers. There wasn't an area that was overlooked: supply/logistics, training, etc.
IMO, a lack of leadership is more of a factor today than sequestration, or a lack of funding.
