That's a nice overstatement of the problem, but the real problem is mundane. Trudeau was elected; Butts and Telford and other inner-circle operatives were/are not. Some like to see the elected politicians and senior mandarins driving the policy bus - even if it's practically a one-man show like Harper's. Butts got enough coverage during the campaign - I certainly read enough articles by journalists who (ironically) sought to make him out to be the brain behind Trudeau (did they succeed, one wonders) - to make him almost a household name, hence he became the go-to whipping boy.
I agree he gets too much mention here, but we shouldn't lose sight of the problem - unelected, non-civil service advisors with a great deal of influence in the PMO - by creating a straw man and thrashing it and pretending no other issue exists.
Most people seem to want to decrease the power of the PMO's core, and particularly the power of people who are neither elected politicians nor career civil servants. Or did some event change that recently?
And if the influence of people in the PMO is partly responsible for setting the government's spending preferences and squeezing out fiscal freedom of manoeuvre which might be used for defence, it's relevant to discussions of defence funding.