The Bush administration promised to bring democracy and security to the Afghan people, rebuild the country’s infrastructure, remove the warlords, and liberate women. None of these promises have been kept.

The country is ruled by a corrupt and hated authoritarian elite. Ordinary Afghans are starving. The poverty rate is estimated at 50%, unemployment at 40%. Violence is on the rise. Clearly, the Bush administration does not have the interests of the Afghan people in mind.

U.S. Aims
So what have been the real aims of the U.S. government? The war on terror and “spreading democracy” have always been a smoke screen for the U.S. goal to maintain strategic control over the Middle East.

The idea was regime change, first in Afghanistan and Iraq then spreading to other parts of the region, not only with the hopes of securing oil and natural gas resources but also to establish a counterbalance to the growing influence of Russia and China in the region. Bush's policies were an attempt to reassert the military dominance of U.S. imperialism. This has been a complete failure.

The U.S.-backed government in Iraq has little authority and the much touted “success” of the surge really means that “only” 800 Iraqis are dying per month compared to thousands before. The weakness of U.S. imperialism has been revealed to the whole world. A clear reflection of this was Russia's boldness in invading the U.S.-backed regime in Georgia in the beginning of August.

Taliban Resurgent
Recently, a lot of attention in the media and political establishment has shifted towards Afghanistan. After the Taliban was overthrown in 2001, Afghanistan was held up as a model for “nation building”. Now, over the last few years the Taliban has been making a comeback, gaining more and more popular support.

When a reactionary organization like the Taliban - who force women to be fully covered and refuse them education, carry out public executions, and believe in strict interpretation of Islamic law - is seen more favorably than the U.S. puppet government and the occupying forces, it says something about the real character of U.S. “nation building” and “humanitarian” interventions.

In fact, it is precisely the brutality, destruction, and desperation caused by U.S. military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan that has alienated so many Muslim youth and provided a fertile recruiting ground for these reactionary organizations.

This summer, for the first time since the Iraq invasion of 2003, the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan has exceeded that in Iraq. Particularly problematic for the U.S. and NATO occupation is the growth in the Taliban's strength in the mountainous region of southern Afghanistan, which shares a border with Pakistan. Taliban forces have been able to find a safe haven by crossing the border into the so-called tribal region of Pakistan, which has also seen a rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda-type networks.

Now the unstable regime in Pakistan has been put under increasing pressure from the Bush administration to do something about the situation. The entire region is threatened by further destabilization and more violent conflict.

Obama's Foreign Policy
Many in the U.S. and around the world are looking towards Obama for a solution to this mess. However, Obama has made it clear that he has no intention of pulling all U.S. troops from Iraq.

The real reason Obama intends to pull some troops out of Iraq is to take the focus off that disaster and to be able to put more troops into Afghanistan and even be in position to take military action in Pakistan.

In a speech on July 14, Obama argued: “Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq... As President, I will make the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win…. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, and more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take [action]. Make no mistake: We can’t succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy.”

If it wasn't otherwise stated, one might think these were the words of a right-wing critic of Bush's policies, but in fact this is the mainstream line of the Democratic Party. There is no question that Obama has the same general aims in continuing a desperate attempt to assert the dominance of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East.

Socialist Alternative has opposed the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan from the start. We have heavily criticized not only Bush's actions but the complicit role the Democrats have played from the beginning.

In the 2008 elections, we call for a vote for Nader, who stands for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. While we know that casting this vote in itself will not end the war, it is crucial that we publicly reject the pro-war policies of the Republicans and the Democrats as one step in building a much broader challenge.