Appeasement

Do the Republicans scent blood? One sign that they might came this week, in the form of a sharp letter from John Boehner, leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, to the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) lobby—long a good friend to the party. Mr Boehner denounced as “appeasement” the lobby’s decision to support Barack Obama’s plans for health-care reform. But that decision was made months ago; attacking it now is surely a sign that the Republicans think Mr Obama is suddenly in trouble. And with some justification. First, the Democrats failed to meet the president’s deadline for getting health bills out of both the House and the Senate by August. Next, as politicians headed home to conduct townhall meetings during this month’s recess, they encountered many constituents angry about the dangers— real or imagined—to be wrought by health reform. Some of these grumblers were planted by conservative groups, but many others were genuinely afraid or upset.

Voters attention

Voters may not be paying much attention to Afghanistan right now, but Congress is growing increasingly uneasy, says Jessica Mathews, the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think-tank. Lawmakers worry that the costs of America’s huge and open-ended commitment may outweigh its benefits. Counter-insurgency campaigns typically take many years, cost a fortune in blood and treasure and end in failure. The people who know most about Afghanistan are often the gloomiest. “Is Nation-Building Doomed?” asks Foreign Affairs. “Is It Worth It?” wonders the American Interest. Mr Biddle, who wrote the article in the American Interest, thinks the war is worth fighting, but only barely. The costs will be high, the outcome uncertain. Mr Obama’s strategy promises more bloodshed in the short run in exchange for a chance of stability in the long term. That is hardly a combination that will appeal to voters, so it will be hard to sustain political support for it for long enough to make it work.

The National Interest

Perhaps, if America were to abandon Afghanistan and the Taliban took over again. Denying them a safe haven is obviously in America’s national interest. But there are several other wild places where al-Qaeda might also set up shop, such as Yemen, Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan, the Philippines or Uzbekistan. “We clearly cannot afford to wage protracted warfare with multiple brigades of American ground forces simply to deny al-Qaeda access to every possible safe haven. We would run out of brigades
long before bin Laden ran out of prospective sanctuaries,” writes Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank. Mr Obama knows this, of course. His purpose in committing so many troops to Afghanistan is not merely to prevent al-Qaeda from returning but also to prevent the country from collapsing into chaos and destabilising its nuclear-armed neighbour, Pakistan. That is too complicated to put on a bumper sticker, but Mr Obama still has the political capital to attempt it.

The Extremist

Osama bin Laden plotted the toppling of the twin towers from Afghanistan. Overthrowing the Taliban regime that sheltered him was the right thing to do. If elected, Mr Obama promised to pull out of Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan. As president, he has kept his word, though not as quickly as he said he would. “We will remove all our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011,” he reiterated this week, “and for America, the Iraq war will end.” At the same time, he is sending more troops to Afghanistan. Their mission, he says, is to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda and its extremist allies”.Like George Bush before him, Mr Obama reckons that the best way to sell a war to Americans is to mention al-Qaeda early and often. But also like Mr Bush, his war is more complicated than he makes it sound. American troops are not really fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, because they are not there any more. The group’s surviving leaders have mostly fled to neighboring Pakistan.