Britain's Budget Cuts - Will the Bell Toll for Us?

This week, the British government announced plans to cut its military
personnel by 10 percent, scrap 40 percent of the army's artillery and
tanks, and withdraw all of its troops from Germany within 10 years,
the New York Timesreports.
The plan will involve a cut of about 8 percent in real terms in
Britain's annual defense budget, significantly less than the 10 to 20
percent cuts that were under discussion. The Times attributes
the reduced military cuts, in part, to US government pressure.

The reduced cuts in military spending are expected to lead to
increased cuts in domestic spending:

The more modest scale of the military cutbacks placed
extra strain on the government's overall effort to save more than $130
billion through spending cutbacks by 2015, a commitment that will
require other government departments to make cutbacks averaging 25
percent. [my emphasis]

This what we have to look forward to with a Republican Congress:
demands for budget cuts from which military spending is largely spared
and which therefore will fall on domestic spending, like Social
Security.

Thanks to the Tea Party and the corporate media, the dominant story
line of the election is not the insufficient scale of government
spending so far to boost employment in response to the massive
fall in consumer demand resulting from the collapse of the housing
bubble - Keynes 101- but "out of control government spending." So, if
Republicans take Congress, you can bet the story of the election will
be: cut government spending. And since it's an enforced dogma of the
national Republican party that you can't touch military spending -
especially the wars - that means big cuts in domestic spending. At
this writing, 238 Democratic candidates have pledged "to oppose any
cuts to Social Security benefits, including increasing the retirement
age." If voters hand the gavel of the House to John Boehner, they are
forgoing that pledge, whether they know it or not.

In principle, there should be no relation between the military budget
and Social Security, because Social Security has a separate tax and a
separate budget; but if you look at the rhetoric of those who want to
cut Social Security, they don't respect this distinction at all: they
see Social Security cuts as a way to reduce projected deficits in the
combined budget.

The fact that we are facing a freight train called "deficit reduction"
which is going to maul domestic spending unless we get serious about
cuts to the military budget ought to increase the sense of urgency
among Democratic constituency groups about ending the wars. It's the
continuation of the wars, more than anything else, that puts a
protective shield around the "out of control" military budget. We'll
never get to have a serious discussion in the US about a 10 to 20
percent cut in the military budget, or even an 8 percent cut, so long
as the wars continue. And so long as that situation endures, budget
cuts mean big cuts in domestic spending.

No doubt, many people will now feel a reduced sense of urgency about
ending the war in Afghanistan as the Obama Administration appears to
be pivoting towards a negotiated political solution that ends the war.
Recent reports
suggest that the US is much more serious than before about supporting
talks between Taliban leaders and the Afghan government to end the
war.

But if you read the fine print, it is not so clear how much urgency
the Obama Administration has in pursuing a negotiated solution,
because the US is apparently insisting that talks will not include
Taliban leader Mullah Omar and will not include the Pakistani
government. And the key justification for not including Mullah Omar is
apparently this: it would give Pakistan too much influence. The
New York Timesreports:

The discussions appear to be unfolding without the
approval of Pakistan's leaders, who are believed to exercise a wide
degree of control over the Taliban's leadership. The Afghan government
[i.e., the US government] seems to be trying to seek a reconciliation
agreement that does not directly involve Pakistan, which Mr. Karzai's
government [i.e., the US government] fears will exercise too much
influence over Afghanistan after NATO forces withdraw.

But that strategy could backfire by provoking the Pakistanis, who
could undermine any agreement.

Mullah Muhammad Omar, the overall leader of the Taliban, is explicitly
being cut out of the negotiations, in part because of his closeness to
the Pakistani security services, officials said. [my emphasis.]

So the story appears to boil down to this: the US is arbitrarily
limiting the scope of talks, and thereby significantly reducing the
chance of their success and prolonging the war, in order to limit
Pakistani influence in a settlement that ends the war.

Now, I'm perfectly well aware that you would have trouble finding 10
Americans in Peoria who really give a rat's behind what happens in
Afghanistan, so long as we are apparently on a path to ending the war.

But those folks in Peoria should consider this: how much of your
Social Security check are you willing to hand over to the Pentagon to
try to limit Pakistani influence in a settlement that ends the war in
Afghanistan? Because that is what's at stake: every month that the war
continues will likely result in another $10 billion cut in domestic
spending.

And as the good folks in Peoria consider that question, they should
consider this fact: today, after all the blood and treasure the United
States spent in Iraq, the Iraqi Prime Minister goes to Iran in order
to get the Iranian government's blessing on his efforts to form a
government. And yet, despite this fact, which should have the neocons
whipping themselves like Arthur Dimmesdale, the great mass of
Americans go about their business, seemingly content to accept the
fact of Iranian influence in Iraq.

So again, I ask: how much of your Social Security check are you
willing to give up to prolong the war, in a probably futile effort to
limit Pakistani influence in post-war Afghanistan?

Look what's happening in Britain. De te fabula narratur:
about you will the story be told.