FORMER US defence secretary Robert Gates seeks to put the wind up British politicians by warning that cuts in arms spending could reduce this country’s capacity to be Washington’s number one lackey.

He didn’t phrase it exactly like that, suggesting that Britain risked not being a “full partner” in US military operations across the world.

Gates served as defence secretary under both George W Bush and Barack Obama during the catastrophic occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most people in Britain believe that our country’s inability to be a “full partner” in further debacles of that kind would be a step forward.

Voters are fed up with being misled about the justification for imperialist invasions, the atrocities involved in such operations and the reasons for eventual disengagement.

People recall Tony Blair’s lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Bush’s ludicrous charge that Saddam Hussein was allied with al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.

They remember the reports of how swimmingly events were going before Britain’s forces were compelled to quit Basra with their tails between their legs.

A similar retreat took place in the Sangin area of Helmand where British losses became unsustainable, prompting their replacement three-and-a-half years ago by US marines.

Despite British service personnel loss of life and the carnage inflicted on civilians, no-one could suggest that Iraq and Afghanistan are more stable today than they were prior to the US-led invasions.

The same applies to Libya where central government control of the country is imaginary and many areas are ruled by local militias.

And yet but for an outbreak of voter-induced sanity among back-bench MPs, David Cameron’s coalition government would have had our air force taking to the skies over Syria to deliver victory to a multinational jihadi force backed by regional medieval dictatorships.

Stop the War convener Lindsay German hit the nail on the head in commenting that “many people in the country don’t particularly like the special relationship with the US” and won’t be upset by Gates’s warning.

Would that the same common-sense approach had been adopted by the Labour front bench which seems reluctant to learn the same lessons the general public has.

Shadow defence secretary Vernon Coaker saluted promptly, taking his position in the trench alongside Gates, demanding that Cameron take on board the concerns of “Britain’s strongest ally.”

“The government must ensure that Britain’s defence capability is maintained,” this latter-day Colonel Blimp barked.

It might have slipped his notice that workers in Britain are seeing their jobs disappear, their wages stagnate and their purchasing power plummet.

His party has accepted the government view that the economy can only be rebuilt on the basis of cuts in working-class pay, pensions and services.

How much better it would have been if Coaker and his fellow frontbenchers had insisted: “The government must ensure that working people’s living standards are defended.”

This would have provided clear political daylight between Labour and the belligerent coalitionists intent on putting US imperial interests before those of British workers.

Yet the parliamentary debate is reduced to the Prime Minister boasting that Britain is one of a small number of states that spends 2 per cent of national income on preparations for war while Labour hints that more money should be found to put US minds at rest.

The situation would be laughable if it wasn’t so damn tragic.