Our guest blogger is Ken Sofer, special assistant with the National Security and International Policy team at the Center for American Progress.

The rhetoric over raising the debt ceiling has become increasingly harsh as Democratic and Republican congressional leaders trade barbs back and forth. But as the U.S. inches closer to defaulting on its debts for the first time in history, criticism of Congress is starting to come from beyond our own borders. From France and Germany to China and India, countries around the world are angry that American politicians play with the possibility of a U.S. default like a yo-yo with little regard for the international economic system that depends on American solvency.

Despite China’s traditional preference of staying out of the domestic affairs of other nations, senior Chinese officials’ frustrations are growing louder and louder. Stephen Roach, the non-executive chairman of Morgan Staley Asia, said senior Chinese officials told him the debt ceiling debte in the U.S. is “truly shocking.” “We understand the politics,” a Chinise official said, “but your government’s continued recklessness is astonishing.” And newspapers around the world are voicing discontent with Congress’s handling of the debt ceiling:

Conservative German Die Welt: “[T]here are few signs of self-doubt or self-awareness in the U.S. … [The Tea Party movement] sees the other side as their enemy. Negotiations with the Democrats, whether it’s about appointing a judge or the insolvency of the United States, are only successful if the enemy is defeated. Compromise, they feel, is a sign of weakness and cowardice.”

The German mass-circulation Bild: “What America is currently exhibiting is the worst kind of absurd theatrics and the whole world is being held hostage… Most importantly, the Republicans have turned a dispute over a technicality into a religious war, which no longer has any relation to a reasonable dispute between the elected government and the opposition.”

French newspaper Le Monde:”The American politicians supposed to lead the most powerful nation in the world are becoming a laughing stock.”

Chinese state-owned newspaper Xinhua: “Given the United States’ status as the world’s largest economy and the issuer of the dominant international reserve currency, such political brinksmanship in Washington is dangerously irresponsible.”

The founding documents of many nations around the world take their inspiration from and quote the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution. But now, foreigners don’t seem to be too inspired watching the intransigent wing of one political party that controls one house of one branch of the federal government hold the entire U.S. hostage. American soft power has taken a self-inflicted hit as a result of the debt ceiling debate.

Even if Congress manages to forge a deal against the wishes of the Tea Party and deliver a bill to President Obama’s desk raising the debt ceiling before default, the damage to our international standing has already been done. Other nations won’t forget how some members of Congress were so careless to allow the international economy fall into another financial disaster in order to score a few political points.

The New Republic yesterday published a lengthy piece by Washington Times reporter Eli Lake highlighting how the “Republican foreign policy consensus has collapsed” and that the GOP contenders for the 2012 presidential nomination are, as the article’s title says, “all over the map.” Lake notes that there’s an internal strife within the GOP over whether Muslims pose a threat to America — with some neocons and conservatives like Grover Norquist embracing mainstream Islam and others, led by Islamophobic conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney, believing that, as Gaffney often says, the nation is close to instituting Sharia law.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is running for president and she is currently surging in polls. However, Bachmann isn’t exactly a foreign policy aficionado and she doesn’t talk too much about her views on international relations. Lake writes that when he started asking around about where she stands, he repeatedly was told to “talk to Frank Gaffney“:

Gaffney himself stressed that he had no formal relationship with Bachmann as an adviser. But he did say that he had contact with several of the GOP candidates. And, of Bachmann, he said this: “She is a friend and a person I admire. I hope she is getting the best counsel she can.” He added, “We are a resource she has tapped, I’m assuming among many others.” When I asked him whether Bachmann had been briefed on the Team B II Report, he replied, “We’ve spent hours, over several days with her. I think she’s got the bulk of what we would tell her in one of the more formal presentations.”

So it’s safe to assume that Bachmann is getting a regular dose of Gaffney’s crazy anti-Muslim conspiracy theories. Gaffney’s Islamophobia is well-documented. Last year he released a report purporting to document the threat posed by Islamic law in the U.S. (no Muslims actually contributed to the report). Among the report’s wild accusations, one was that members of the Obama administration are part of the “Iran lobby.” Gaffney thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to infiltrate the American conservative movement. Before her confirmation to the Supreme Court, Gaffney claimed Elana Kagan would impose Sharia law on America. He even accused Gen. David Petraeus of “submission” to Sharia and thinks the president is secretly Muslim.

But Gaffney’s baseless far-right views aren’t limited to his Islamophobia. In addition to flirting with birtherism, as late as 2009, he claimed to have evidence of al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq “collaborating on all kinds of things.” He has even said Iraq was complicit in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Gaffney also once said that repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would lead to reinstating the draft (hasn’t so far) and he claimed the DADT repeal would force some “radical” LGBT “agenda” on the U.S. military.

More recently, Gaffney said Obama’s policy on Israel (which is basically the same as all of his predecessors) will “catalyze the next Middle East war.” He even said Obama might order a military attack on Israel.

This is Frank Gaffney, currently Michele Bachmann’s primary foreign policy adviser.

Yesterday, the Treasury Department, announcing sanctions on six suspected al Qaeda facilitators, alleged a pact between Iran and al Qaeda. According to a statement, Iran agreed to a “secret deal with al Qaeda allowing it to funnel funds and operatives through its territory.” Treasury offered few details about the deal, leaving its contours mostly a mystery.

“Our sense is this network is operating through Iranian territory with the knowledge and at least the acquiescence of Iranian authorities,” a Treasury official, named in some reports as Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen, said in a phone briefing. The Departments of Treasury and State did not respond to requests for interviews.

None of the six people named for sanctions were Iranian, and only one is allegedly based on Iranian soil: Syrian national Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil. Of the other named operatives and facilitators, one is based in Iraq, one in Pakistan, one in Qatar and two in Kuwait. The Gulf monarchies of Kuwait and Qatar are close U.S. allies, leading Columbia professor and former Iran-based foreign service officer Gary Sick to comment that articles about the announcement could just as easily have been headlined: “Two U.S. Allies in the Gulf promote and support anti-U.S. terrorism.”

The announcement yesterday piqued the interests of some prominent Iran hawks, including the neoconservative editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, which has already more or less called for war with Iran. The Journal editorial concluded that news of the agreement served as “a reminder of why a regime that has no qualms serving as al Qaeda’s facilitator can on no account be permitted to build a nuclear bomb.”

Al Qaeda has long been known to have some affiliated personnel inside Iran. Several operatives fled there after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001. But tensions between the Sunni terror group and Iran’s Shia government have long been thought to temper co-operation. Iran detained many of the operatives on its soil, usually at least restricting their travel. Those conditions were reportedly eased when al Qaeda reportedly helped Iran get an agent released by Pakistani militants, according to “Western officials.” Last year, then head of U.S. forces of Afghanistan Gen. David Petraeus said Iran’s attitude toward the group was “unpredictable,” and the Financial Times noted today that “there have been persistent reports of co-operation between the two given that they share a mutual enemy: the U.S.”

The Republican-controlled House Foreign Aid Subcommittee slashed the budget for foreign aid and contributions to international organizations including the United Nations yesterday, failing to meet the Obama administration’s requests on most line items.

The exact effects of the cuts are impossible to know, but the U.S.’ role in the world and international organizations will certainly be curtailed. It’s not even clear how the lead foreign aid vehicle — the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) — will be able to stay afloat with the budget for its operating expenses (paying salaries and keeping the lights on) amounting to less than two thirds of what the administration asked for. At $982 million, that’s a 27 percent decrease from USAID operations spending last year.

Here is a chart looking at other important programs that also took a hit (using statistics from InterAction, a coalition of U.S. non-profits):

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton already fired back at the subcommittee, telling media that the cuts were “debilitating to my efforts to carry out a considered foreign policy and diplomacy.”

Indeed, cuts to foreign assistance and international organizations (which includes the U.N.) will likely lessen U.S. influence. For example, the Economic Support Fund (ESF) allows the U.S. to give development aid to countries like Iraq, where the U.S. seeks to retain some influence as its military presence winds down. But ESF funds were cut by more than $500 million and will amount to more than 40 percent less than what the U.S. spent two years ago.

The massive cuts also run counter to the advice given to Congress in April by 70 retired top military leaders. General Michael W. Hagee, USMC (Ret.), who co-chaired the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition’s (USGLC) group, said at the time:

We face tremendous challenges around the world, today, and we must have our military working hand-in-hand with diplomats and development experts to meet these challenges. Without the proper resources for our civilian agencies, our national security is at risk.

Indeed, deep cuts to programs like food assistance and disaster relief aid are particularly striking as the worst drought in 60 years caused a U.N-declared famine in Somalia.

Politico reports today that, according to the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, Anders Breivik, the right-wing “fundamentalist” charged with the terror attacks in Norway last week, purchased high-capacity gun clips from the United States. Part of Breivik’s attack included a gun assault on a Labour Party youth camp just outside of Oslo:

Anders Behring Breivik wrote in a 1,500-page manifesto that he bought 10 30-round ammunition clips for his .223 caliber rifle from an unnamed small U.S. supplier, which then in turn acquired the clips from other suppliers. Norway forbids the sale of clips for hunting rifles that hold more than three bullets, according to Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten.

Breivik wrote in his manifesto that while he could have purchased the high-capacity magazines in Sweden, they would have been significantly more expensive than ordering them from a U.S. supplier. He wrote that he spent $550 for the 10 clips. He also described legally buying four 30-round clips for a Glock handgun in Norway.

The legal sale of high-capacity magazines in the U.S. became an issue earlier this year after Jared Loughner’s shooting spree at an event in Arizona that wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). Loughner used similar 30-round clips and was subdued only after he stopped to reload his weapon. Such high-capacity clips were illegal until 2004 when the assault weapons ban expired. Many have argued that lives would have been spared that day if it had been illegal to purchase high-capacity magazines.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) introduced legislation to put the limit back on these gun clips. However, the legislation has stalled in the GOP-controlled House. McCarthy told Politico that Americans should be ashamed that Breivik purchased the clips from American dealers:

“There should be a lot of shame,” she told POLITICO. “We’re sending a death warrant to other parts of the world. … Unfortunately now internationally it’s known that you can get here, buy your guns, buy your large magazines and you’re not going to have any problem.”

Of course, the National Rifle Association holds considerable sway among members of Congress, particularly Republicans, and opposes any restrictions on guns and ammunition. Responding to calls to limit the size of gun clips after the Loughner shootings, the NRA said high-capacity magazines are needed for “self-defense.” However, members of the NRA have disagreed with that argument. “If ten rounds of ammunition can’t do the job you probably shouldn’t own a gun,” one NRA member told ThinkProgress earlier this year.

As budget negotiations creep closer to the Aug. 2 debt ceiling deadline, foreign policy hawks are scrambling to protect the defense budget from major cuts. Downplaying the growing size of U.S. defense spending requires creative math and a penchant for statistical gymnastics. One of the go-to talking points for pro-military industrial complex pundits is to frame U.S. defense spending in context of the Department of Defense’s budget as a percentage of the over all federal budget and of the nation’s GDP.

Robert Zarate, a policy adviser at the neoconservative Foreign Policy Initiative, blogs at the Weekly Standard:

[T]he Defense Department’s baseline spending, when viewed as a percentage of total federal spending, has generally declined since 2003. And when viewed as a percentage of gross domestic product, the Pentagon’s baseline budget has stayed relatively constant at levels between 3 percent and 4 percent.

And Foreign Policy Initiative Director Jamie Fly wrote on National Review Online:

The percentage of federal spending devoted to the core defense budget…has actually declined over the last ten years from 15.6 percent to 14.6 percent.Baseline defense spending as a percentage of GDP in recent years has been at a level lower than any time since 1940 except for the Clinton administration’s “procurement holiday,” which extended through the Bush administration’s pre-9/11 budget.

However, measuring the Pentagon’s budget as a percentage of the total federal budget is meaningless in this context. The reason defense spending has decreased as a percentage of the budget is not because the U.S. is spending less on defense, it’s because national priorities have shifted over time.

Moreover, pegging military spending to GDP might be useful for private industry seeking a market share of the U.S. economy , but it’s virtually unheard of to link national security to the percentage of GDP expended on defense. Portraying the defense budget in these contexts sidesteps the reality that defense spending has ballooned over the past 10 years. Between 2001 and 2011 the Department of Defense’s base budget, which excludes war and nuclear weapons funding, grew from $390 billion to $540 billion, an increase of 38 percent:

While neoconservatives, particularly those connected to the Foreign Policy Initiative, have made every effort to suggest that defense spending has stayed the same — or, as Robert Kagan tried to argue, that DoD “has no domestic constituency” — the FPI and its affiliates are making every effort to shield the defense budget from the dramatic budget cuts under discussion in Washington.

Last week, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said he would seek American “trainers,” instead of troops, to stay in Iraq past 2011 — a move that would allow him to keep U.S. forces in Iraq without getting approval from parliament, which as of yet has not come to an agreement and is bitterly divided over the issue. The trainers reportedly would not be active duty military “but rather contractors with military or security backgrounds.”

Yesterday Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Iraq needs U.S. help to train its military and that the Iraqis “are heading to an agreement on having trainers.” However, Zebari stressed that the trainers would be active-duty military, not private contractors. Adding to the confusion, Maliki said yesterday that parliament would make the final decision, the AP reports:

The prime minister “stressed that the Iraqi parliament is the body that decides eventually whether the country needs the U.S. forces to stay or not,” the statement said. Al-Maliki also told Biden that “the leaders of the political blocs might be able to reach a decision on this during their next meeting.”

But some in Maliki’s own party — perhaps influenced by those loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr — are saying publicly that U.S. forces need to leave. And McClatchy reports that the feeling is mutual among other local politicians:

[S]ome politicians would prefer to see the backs of the U.S. forces. Athiel al Nujaifi, the governor of Ninewah province, which includes Mosul, believes that U.S. troops are no longer needed in the city or the province. [...]

“I am confident that we are able to keep the peace without any assistance from the American forces,” Nujaifi said in a phone interview. “It is we who demanded that they withdraw from Mosul, and not more than a month later, security became noticeably better. And we are confident that the same will happen all over the province as soon as they withdraw from all of Ninewah.”

Iraqi Security and American military officials in Mosul said U.S. forces should stay. “It’s not the right time, and it’s a big mistake for the U.S. to pull out so fast,” an unnamed senior Iraqi security official said.

Iraq’s political leaders are tentatively scheduled to meet again this Saturday to discuss the issue.

Former DHS Domestic Terrorism Analyst Daryl Johnson

The greatest threat of large-scale attacks come from individuals and small groups of extremists who subscribe to radical Islamic or far right-wing ideologies, said Gary LaFree, director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or START. [...]

Ackerman said nationally, law enforcement has been focused since the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001 on the threat of Islamic terrorism, even as the threat from domestic anti-government groups has been growing.

“Some people believe we have taken our eye off the ball when it comes to domestic right-wing extremists,” he said.

Sadly, the Department of Homeland Security reportedly isn’t taking these threats too seriously. Daryl Johnson, a former senior Department of Homeland Security domestic terror analyst, told the Southern Poverty Law Center last month that “there is just one person” at DHS who is focused on these issues. Why? Shortly after President Obama took office, DHS produced a report warning of the rise of right-wing extremism in the United States and that domestic extremists were looking to recruit Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.

However, the report was leaked and right-wing media figures and Republicans in Congress were outraged. “The person who drafted the outrageous homeland security memo smearing veterans and conservatives should be fired,” Newt Gingrich said at the time. Michelle Malkin called it a “DHS hit job on conservatives.” Bowing to the right-wing hysteria, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano eventually ordered the report withdrawn.

Johnson, who describes himself a Republican, said that after the controversy, DHS gutted his unit:

When the right-wing report was leaked and people politicized it, my management got scared and thought DHS would be scaled back. It created an environment where my analysts and I couldn’t get our work done. DHS stopped all of our work and instituted restrictive policies. Eventually, they ended up gutting my unit. [...] Since our report was leaked, DHS has not released a single report of its own on this topic. Not anything dealing with non-Islamic domestic extremism—whether it’s anti-abortion extremists, white supremacists, “sovereign citizens,” eco-terrorists, the whole gamut.

“Sad to say, we were right on this one. History has shown that,” Johnson said, referring to the murder of abortion provider George Tiller and neo-Nazi James von Brunn who killed a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.