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.