Do the 'triggered' defense cuts come on top of withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan

[muriel_volestrangler]

or can the Republicans on the committee say "withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan will save the $600 billion - therefore we don't fear the trigger, and we'll refuse to close tax loopholes, oil company subsidies etc."?

I can't find anything specifying this. For the immediate defense cuts, it seems to come from savings from partial withdrawal:

Includes Savings of $350 Billion from the Base Defense Budget – the First Defense Cut Since the 1990s: The deal puts us on track to cut $350 billion from the defense budget over 10 years. These reductions will be implemented based on the outcome of a review of our missions, roles, and capabilities that will reflect the President’s commitment to protecting our national security.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet-victory-bipartisan-compromise-economy-american-people

I hope that the trigger would cause defense cuts in addition to savings from the withdrawals already proposed. That way, Republicans will actually have to negotiate.

Has anyone found anything about this?

[MADem]

1. Sounds more like "stick to the outyear planning to achieve savings" to me.

Which, in and of itself, would be an achievement.

[Jim__]

2. Iraq and Afghanistan are funded outside of the base defense budget.

That doesn't mean the republicans will not claim that the cuts for Iraq and Afghanistan cover the defense requirements. History says they will make just such a claim and that Obama will give in to them. There is a short description of the US defense budget here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Thanks - interesting; if you just froze base defense spending without inflation increases

it would save the $600 billion over 10 years. So it would just be a 1.9% per annum decrease in real terms. That's pretty damn easy to manage. (Taking figures from here, where your link links again to: http://useconomy.about.com/library/fy2012budget.pdf )