In 13^th century the Afghans fought against the Moghol Empire for many decades and centuries, which resulted in lose of many lives. In1938-42 the first Anglo-Afghan war the British lost 16.000 soldiers and civilian. During this particular period only one person got alive out of 16,000 Dr. William Brydon a British Army Surgeon.

In 20^th century when the Russian communism regime was growing and Russia was becoming one of the biggest superpowers in the world against America, once again Afghanistan became the victim of invaders. USSR ideology to promote communism in Afghanistan had shattered within 10 years of its arrival in (No-Man’s Land). In 1989 the Russian troops withdrew from Afghanistan empty handed like any other invaders, their hopes and dreams had lasted only a few troubled years, in which they spent millions of US dollars and lost thousands of their military personnel as well as killed and injured millions of innocent Afghan civilians including children, men, women, young, old and destroyed Afghanistan.

To look back at the history of Afghanistan there have been many invaders by different countries yet no-one have been successful to establish a proper government. To make my point clear the Americans and their allies would not be successful in Afghanistan unless all foreign troops withdraw from country. I personally believe that if foreign troops remain in Afghanistan, the fighting would never stop, as it has proven in the past decades. The other factor is that many Afghans believe President Karazi doesn’t have the ability to run the country without the help of foreign forces and that shows his weakness, and Afghanistan has always been free and independent; no matter how much these major ethnic groups Tajik, Pushton, Uzbak or Hazra dislike each other, yet they always stand side by side to fight against the invaders.

To prove my argument, take the example of Russia. When the Russian entered Afghanistan in 1979, every single Afghan man, woman, young or old started their struggle against the Russians. Under the current circumstances Afghanistan’s most cities are volatile and some shift sides from government to Taliban. Most recently Aid workers were shot dead in the day light in the capital Kabul and there are kidnappings around the country.

Further more since the invasion of Afghanistan by the Americans there have been sharp increases in the opium production. According to the BBC since the fall of the Taliban, the number of opium has increased to 28 out 32 regions. That is one of the major factors in worsening the violence in the country and right now in Afghanistan the only cultivation exist is opium. However in terms of economy Afghanistan has traditionally been based upon self sufficiency and subsistence agriculture.

According to CBS News, the drug in Afghanistan is the country’s main “cash crop” contributing nearly three billion dollars a year in illegal revenues to afghan economy, which equals to 50 percent of the gross national income. For the last seven years the current government in Afghanistan didn’t root out the Taliban and had not been able to stop the cultivation of opium.

Although Afghanistan is moving towards some kind of progress for example, building new shopping centres, schools are running at least at some cities, TV channels, radio and newspapers are widely available to public. Nevertheless Afghanistan is in need of more jobs, better security, a stop to cultivation of opium and one of the most important elements of the war in Afghanistan is the exit of foreign troops out the country.

In an article published in 2005 by the University of Minnesota Professor Holt argues, that Afghanistan was Alexander's toughest challenge. “The British in the 1800s and the Soviets in the 1900s met similar fates. Will the United States' experience in the 21st century be different? You do have to think about how things will play out in a place like Afghanistan," says Holt. "No superpower has been able to [conquer] it. Afghanistan is not a 'nation' in the sense we're used to, with its four major regions centered around cities that are closer to other countries than they are to each other."

First, let's start with Afghanistan's location. Afghanistan is a landlocked country in South Asia, east of Iran, another country that receives quite a lot of attention in the media. Location is important because in 2002, as the youth of America prepared to lay down their lives in the foreign country of Iraq, only a depressing 13% of youth surveyed could even point to that country on a map. If these were the people in our country recently emerging from high school geography classes and taking world history in college, I shudder to think of how few older adults would have been able to identify Iraq's location had they been surveyed.

Next, let's take a look at how big Afghanistan is and how many people live there. Afghanistan is 647,500 sq km wide and has a population of 31,056,997 (CIA, 2007). For an American comparison, Afghanistan is slightly smaller than Texas, but the population of Texas is only 22,859,968 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). That's an additional eight million plus people, so to continue our Texan comparison, that's the equivalent of moving the entire of population of Virginia into the Lone Star State. Comparing Afghanistan to our own country helps bring home the reality of this country's troubles.

We know a lot about how the United States fought for its independence from Britian and we're proud beyond measure that we have become the country we are today. What many people don't think about is that we aren't the only ones who broke free from British rule, and that we managed to flourish while other countries suffered. Afghanistan was one of the less fortunate countries. It was founded by Ahmad Shah Durrani in 1747 and was functionally a cushion between the British and Russian empires until it won its independence from the British in 1919 (CIA, 2007). This break into freedom, however, did not lead it to become the flourishing country the U.S.A. is today.

Economically, Afghanistan suffered for decades, struggling with war, disease, and illicit drug trade, all in astronomical amounts. Fortunately, official reports anticipate many improvements in store for the Afghanistan economy and largely attribute the growing success to the intervention of foreign countries as well as the revival of agricultural development. However, the GDP (gross domestic product) of Afghanistan remains at $21.5 billion, a trifling amount compared to the United States' $12.98 trillion GDP (CIA, 2007). Of the 21.5 billion dollars that the country manages to generate, one-third of that value originates with the illegal opium trade. Afghanistan exports approximately $135.4 million in goods and services, but imports nearly three times as much. For that matter, the $425 million Afghanistan receives in foreign aid hardly begins to repair the country's $1.4 billion external debt, roughly 6% of the country's income. Debt is not the chief problem faced by Afghanistan and her people today, but it certainly does not help. Ninety percent of the country's population work in agriculture, and much of that is growing opium. More importantly, nearly 40% of the population isn't employed at all, a staggering ten times the unemployment rate in the United States. It's food for thought in a country where we are facing an “economic crisis” and yet most people talking about it are more busy wondering about how to pay for that 40 inch LCD TV than they are about whether their opium business will get busted and they'll have to live on the streets.

And it's not just the economy. It's the despairingly low quality of life that most Afghans endure. In the typical seven member household found in Afghanistan, every person able to work is expected to do so, even children. Legally, the minimum age an Afghan child may work is fifteen, but many children even below the age of nine work to support their families, since the government lacks the ability to enforce their child labor laws. Infant mortality rates are high, and people aren't expected to live much past the age of 40, thanks to the prevalence of hepatitis A, typhoid fever and malaria which the country does not have the proper medical services to combat. Oh, and you know that safe, clean water running from the faucets in every home and public building in the United States? Only thirty-five percent of urban Afghans and nineteen percent of rural Afghans have access to that particular resource.

As we fought in Iraq for eight years and beyond, it was too easy for a United States population uneducated in Iraq's culture and economy to say, “What does it matter? They're all terrorists anyway.” That's the point of this discussion; to avoid that deadly mistake if our new president and government representatives turn their heads toward Afghanistan. We must maintain a sense of compassion for the people of Afghanistan, who have managed to not only survive against great odds but also develop a deeply diverse and imaginative culture steeped in poetry, art, and music. So by educating ourselves about Afghanistan and the many cultures within it, we can take a more proactive approach to helping our government make the right choices within Afghanistan's borders. We do have to fight the poison of organizations like the Taliban in Afghanistan, but we also must recognize the humanity of the people in the South Asian country and work to give them the quality of life that all humans deserve. Our duty doesn't stop at making war and trying to bring their country democracy or peace. We must use our knowledge of their country and their suffering to help them obtain a better quality of life. That's the real meaning of peace.

In the name of “war on terror” Afghanistan was attacked by the US and it allies in October 2001. The primary target was to get “Osama Bin Laden dead or alive” as President Bush put it, bring democracy in the country, and rooted out the Taliban and

Al-Qaeda. But as we are witnessing neither Osama Bin Laden was captured “died or alive” nor Taliban were rooted out of the country. In contrary Osama Bin Laden is still alive enjoying posting his videos warning the west for his next attacks.

As far as democracy is concerned there isn’t a proper democracy in Afghanistan. In deed Afghanistan held an election in 2004 for the first time, although it seemed like a real progress towards democracy. Yet some critics argue that Afghanistan is far away from democracy.  According to Meena Nanji, an independent filmmaker and a writer, who is been in Afghanistan and has written several articles, argue that the afghan election was not fair and free. “International human rights groups and local afghan journalists reported that decisions were agreed upon not through free and equal participation but physical intimidation of delegates, vote buying, death threats and backroom decisions between government official. In short the ratification of the constitution was anything but democratic,” said Ms Nanji:

Similar view is supported among others who believe Afghanistan’s election was fraudulent. According to an article published in the Socialist website, it reads; “Karzai won the election in Afghanistan by American help and money and rigging.” Younis Qanooni who was the main opponent of Karzia in the presidential race in 2004 has said several time that he conceded defeat to “avoid violence and to respect national interest”.

Seven years on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is getting stronger day by day. Every single day there is fighting across Afghanistan. In many cities like Ghazni, which is only two hours away from the capital Kabul most schools are burned and students are left once again in the dark. Some critics believe that America and its allies are losing the war in Afghanistan.

According to the New York Times, British ambassador in Afghanistan Sherard Cowper-Coles said: “The presence of the coalition, in particular its military presence, is part of the problem, not part of its solution,” Sir Sherard was quoted as saying. “Foreign forces are the lifeline of a regime that would rapidly collapse without them. As such, they slow down and complicate a possible emergence from the crisis. The security situation is getting worse.”

In the last the three decades Afghans have been fight against communism, after the defeated of communism, the American invasion took place. It is clear to fight war with war can not solve the issue, but it can only increase the violence.

Iraq is another example of “war on terror”. Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the Americans, several groups were formed to fight not only against the Americans but also against Iraqis themselves that help the Americans. Thanks to the invasion of America in Iraq and Afghanistan, both countries have become one of the dangerous places on earth.

Not to mention both countries have lost millions of people dead, injured, left homeless and dozens have been killed daily. This is the result of a war. Can war really bring an end to the problem?

Harper on the other hand is not increasing his hold on the province he so dearly needs to turn his minority government into a majority, Quebec. Recent polls have shown his popularity has slumped to 18 from 25 % while the Bloc is remaining strong. There is an element of immaturity, which will cost Duceppe's gain in the province. He was asked to account for his political record over the past 18 years by a conservative MP and called the man an imbecile over national television. IT does go to show you that Duceppe knows nothing of facing his opponent with self-assuredness and try to account for what his party did or did not do during that time instead of flaring up.

The National Democratic party has my support. They are bent on getting jobs back to Canadians especially those of middle class families without the rhetoric of the PM. Harper has been heard to say that those constituents hit by the job shortages and cut-backs should invest in stocks! He mentioned that there are jobs everywhere! Well people in the steel and forestry industry who have seen further downsizing since Harper has been in power don't think so.

With the presidential race so close, and the policy platforms of the candidates so well advertised on the candidate's websites, the only wild card in the debates will be personal appeal and presidential demeanor. Furthermore, the candidate's personas are so well known, that this debate is an opportunity for each candidate to improve his persona in front of the national audience.

Barack Obama is known for providing long-winded, sophisticated analyses of foreign policy and national security issues so Obama will likely try to present a more decisive persona more fitting of a president of the United States, rather than befitting a political science professor. John McCain on the other hand, known for providing testy, feisty responses particularly when irritated, will try to present a more thoughtful, considered persona. Both will try to moderate the aspect of their delivery that is most negative. This over-riding element in the debates will contribute to a rather tepid, lukewarm debate without much promise for new insights about the candidates.

The candidates will address issues that have already been debated in public for months: the Iraq War, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, a China policy, a policy on Russia, global warming, international terrorism, our relations with Europe, and international trade. None of those issues offers a fertile ground for surprising policy initiatives. John McCain is the most interventionist and favored the troop surge in Iraq. Barack Obama voted against the Iraq War, but supported intervention in Afghanistan. The most controversial topic is how to handle nuclear proliferation and what to do about Iran: should the U.S. continue to work through the United Nations or should the U.S. take unilateral action against the Iranian regime.

Accordingly, within what promises to be a very uninspiring debate, the candidates will focus on form and not substance. Viewers will be left with a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidates based on their delivery and personality rather than on the substance of the issues debated. Absent the candidate's views on Iran, there is likely to be little new in the way of policy recommendations. The debate will be an acting rehearsal rather than a debate on policy, and that promises to be a dull debate.

We in Canada are largely disillusioned with the money laundering politics of the Liberal party. Martin never accounted for his poor financial balance and the Conservatives who are reminiscent of the Russian old guard status quo are taking advantage of this drop in liberal favoritism. For the first time in many years the Conservatives are gaining votes in Quebec because of a power vacuum there. The fact that most Quebecois are against the policies for a separate French province is also helping him and the liberal leader is totally deficient in being able to hold any proper discourse to bring an economic recovery to the province. The carbon tax is a total absurdity. The Conservatives will continue to keep the oil gluttonous companies happy and little will be done to reach Kyoto accords or see a real change in what cars run on the roads. This does not sound too distant from Russian styled politics aimed at feeding the public lies on what they need and keeping the average citizen away from knowing our real foreign political intentions.

I am encouraged to know that communism has failed in Eastern Europe probably not by the reasons that we are fed but by the futility in their maintaining a dominant sphere in regions, which hitherto did not want the rule of one party politics which modern communism is privy to.

One has to know that living in a capitalist society dies not mean I have a free choice in determining what the future can be but I can fight the status quo, express my opinion without fear of being arrested as an "enemy of the state". To keep this country free of ever becoming a place where one party rules means that I should be able to make tangible choices and this is not the case. Whichever party wins power I am likely to support the continued deployment of Canadian troops in an undeclared war. I am also indirectly supporting energy giants like Exxon who have the government in their pocket by continuing got to push for more oil and gas drilling when we are supposed to be moving for more energy friendly sources.

One has to know how capitalism has been able to survive whereas communism in the form of Soviet Bloc style or Maoist leadership hasn't. Man has a natural tendency in wanting to own what he has and not be dictated to about how he has to get there. Man will often follow a model and the model of sharing appeared to be practical and simple enough at the start but it favored the politicians who became corrupt and funneled wealth to themselves like the late Romanian leader Ceausescu did before being hung for his crimes against the state in 1989.

Much of what was intended as communism is not what Marx and Engel intended. I used to say that if they were aware of the Gulag that was set of for "prisoners of conscience would have turned over in their graves. If anything their socialist thought from which communism came to be last century was not intended as a model for imprisonment so that individuals who want to speak out for their independent rights must be imprisoned and punished. It came to be interpreted as an oligarchic form of government that kept the people on the lowest rung of the social scale in that position. Consequently it allowed for little movement up the social scale.

It is important to understand on what basis communism was created so that researchers can work around it and devise a system that is going to be fair for the general public. After all we work on percentages where there is a growing sense of discontent among the educated class that they cannot reach their goals because they have been arbitrarily eliminated from any competition or because their degrees suddenly become useless as younger people are giving the opportunity enter into the job market without sufficient experience. Additional friction is being caused by language obligations imposed by the province on new immigrants who are only contributing to the welfare of the whole province. The province has set out language police to monitor immigrant-operated businesses and this smacks of something out the ex-Soviet Union.

I do not know what went on in the Soviet Union as far as respecting a person"s educational level but on this side of the Atlantic, I think our government is soviet like that in the way foreign policy is explained to foreigners. One shouldn't forget that the Soviets used their Brezhnev doctrine to go into Afghanistan by force and we are doing the same with a cover up story of bringing peace and prosperity to the country. We are only fueling the corrupt practices of maintaining cocaine poppy fields and keeping the local farmers from growing what they want to!

We also have to deal with such an unanswerable government that sends soldiers to Afghanistan just as the average non-violent Russian had to, when an unpopular war started in 1979 as the Soviets invaded their poorer neighbour. In a capitalist democracy where the average citizen pays taxes to maintain the deployment of soldiers in an open ended war, I should be able to have a few questions answered and none of the psychobabble that the mainstream media controlled by the government feeds us.

The Pakistanis have inherently been sympathetic to the Taliban and have been reluctant to fight them all along. Hardly surprising that, since the Taliban were a creation of the Pakistani intelligence agency (the ISI). Its quite well known that a lot of retired Pakistani and other military personnel were captured during the fight to drive the Taliban out - post 9/11.  They were obviously in cahoots with the Taliban and were providing the Taliban logistical and military advice, along with all of the military hardware necessary in fighting the Northern Alliance.  The Pakistani military had in fact actively encouraged its military officers to train the Taliban and provide them assistance and arms.  The goal of the Pakistani Army was to expand its sphere of influence, to include Afghanistan, but also beyond its borders.  Afghanistan was looked upon as territory that could give the Pakistanis strategic depth vis-a-vis its enemy India.  Indeed, the Pakistanis found an Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban quite convenient in its fight with India over Kashmir.  Terrorist camps funded by the ISI and supported by Al-Qaeda sprang up all over Afghanistan and men trained there started finding their way to Indian-Administered Kashmir.  The Pakistanis would love to have that situation return and its no secret that they'd love to see the NATO/American troops withdraw, so that they can continue their Taliban experiment.

The United States and the West took its eyes off Afghanistan post the Soviet withdrawal.  Once the Soviet Union was forced to head back from Afghanistan, they thought the problem was over.  However, what was forgotten was that the millions and billions of dollars and weapons given to Pakistan remained unaccounted for and no effort was made to trace or keep track of it.  Indeed, the only goal was to drive the Soviets out.  A familiar pattern seems to be emerging now.  We have billions of dollars being provided to Pakistan in the form of "assistance" to fight the War on Terror and to compensate Pakistan.  However, there is no mechanism to ensure that such "assistance" is proportionate or warranted or getting the desired results.  We have helicopter gunships and F16s being provided to Pakistan to fight the Taliban, which probably would end up being used by Pakistan in a war with India (its traditional enemy).  One wonders about the logic behind the sale of F16s to Pakistan.  Are we arming them to fight India - rather than the Taliban.  Its highly unlikely that they would use F16s to bomb their own territory.  One hopes that past mistakes are noted and are not repeated.  Funds provided to Pakistan needs to be conditional on performance of the Pakistanis in cracking down on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan.

The goals of the Pakistanis are at odds with the goals of the West and the US.  They seek to engineer instability in Afghanistan and would do everything in their power to see that the Afghans don't become self-sufficient and independent.  An independent Afghanistan is not thought to be in the best interest of the Pakistani State.  Although we term them as an "ally," they are in fact not allies.  They don't have any shared sense of goals and objectives with the West.  Indeed, a section of their military and intelligence personnel have become radical islamists and are not trusted by the West.

Whatever America and NATO choose to do, they'd be best served to remember the enormous consequences of taking the eye of the ball - post the Soviet withdrawal.  That costly mistake enabled the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies to create and develop the Taliban and cause havoc, not only in Afghanistan but ultimately in the United States itself.  The stability of Afghanistan is vital, and ensuring peace in Afghanistan should be a far greater priority than in Iraq.  America can't afford ignoring the Pakistanis and their infamous intelligence agency.  The Pakistanis need to know constantly that they are being watched and evaluated.

The ‘democracy-as-remedy’ formula is based on the assumption that freedom is the ultimate goal of every individual. Yet most Westerners do not know what it is like to go hungry. When it comes to food or freedom, the former trumps the latter. That’s human nature. During the Depression of the 1930’s and the subsequent rise of fascist Europe, elections were of little concern to people who struggled to put food on the table. The democratic Weimar republic failed in large part because it could not feed its people. All over Europe, people pandered to extremists who offered solutions, however excessive or radical.

Indeed, more often than not poverty causes extremism, rather than the other way around. A fairer reflection of our goals as individuals therefore, would be to put prosperity at the top of the list of goals, with freedom (and democracy) as one of several means to achieve this, along with factors like economic growth.

There is also a fallacy that democratic reform leads to economic prosperity. Historically, this is not the case. According to Harvard economist Ed Glaeser, “the view that democracy is a critical ingredient for economic growth is untenable. There is no robust statistical relationship to back it up.” In fact, Glaeser continues, “Many of the best [economic] growth experiences have been in less-than-democratic regimes … such as Lee Kwan Yew's Singapore or post-Mao China.” He does concede however, that growth rates vary far more under dictatorships than under democracies, and that crucially, “Dictators like Mobutu Sese Seko or Kim Jong Il, are about the worst thing for economic growth, other than civil war.”

MIT economist Daron Acemoglu backs Glaeser’s assessment. What’s more, he argues that historically, “many democracies suffer economically from populist and irresponsible macroeconomic policies … often adopted after transitions from repressive dictatorships and during periods when politics are turbulent.”

The failure to spread democracy in the Middle East also derives from the political history of the region. In its 5,000 year history, the Middle East has been almost totally devoid of elections. Unlike Westerners, Middle Easterners simply do not have the experience of dealing with the democratic process. It is extremely naive to believe that the modern Middle Eastern political framework – which includes monarchies, repressive secular dictators, and authoritarian rulers – can transform to a democratic system in a few short years. The US took almost 200 years before all segments of its society had equal representation. Britain was a prosperous world power long before it became democratic. France, Spain, and the Netherlands too, were wealthy imperial forces before they embraced democracy.

Nurturing the democratic system is a long, tedious process. Democracy needs time to take root and develop. Institutions need to be put in place before any elections. Difficult economic decisions that are the hallmark of initial economic growth need to be made; decisions that weak populist governments would not be able to endure. This is not to say that democracy will never work in the Arab world. Many states that started out autocratic became democratic once their people desired it. South Korea and Singapore are recent examples. China could be next.

We need to be careful not to measure the democratic development of a country by the number of elections it holds. Since the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan had an Interim Authority (Dec 2001–June 2002), a Transitional Authority (June 2002–Dec 2004) and a Presidential authority (Dec 2004–present). Each one of these was preceded by some form of election or vote. In addition, there has been a vote on the new Afghan Constitution (Dec 2003) and a parliamentary election (Sep 2005). That is five elections or votes in as many years. After the last of these, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, “The results of these elections will lead to the seating of Afghanistan’s National Assembly, the final step in the process begun four years ago [my italics] … to create the democratic intuitions of a sovereign Afghanistan.” Afghanistan has a GDP per capita among the lowest in the world, about 72% of the population is illiterate, and the Taliban have not even been defeated, yet the current US Administration would have you believe that an election is all you need for a democracy.

Policy makers need to look at the facts on the ground and make sober decisions based on reality and not ideals. Perhaps the time has come to reevaluate the notion that democracy, the sacred cow of the West, is the cure-all remedy for the Middle East. Safety, security, and prosperity, the true goals of the West in the Middle East, may better be served, in the short term, by a different model. Some of the small, oil-rich Gulf States, despite the lack of democracy, enjoy a relatively high standard of living. They could serve as potential models for other Arab states to mimic. The ‘Asian Tigers’ who all prospered economically before becoming democratic, could also serve as a model.

The time is ripe to consider a new Middle Eastern strategy. The road to true democracy is not through multiple elections. Elections should be one of the last steps in the democratization of the Middle East, a process that could take decades if done properly. Instead, the West should look to establish a genuine economic base and an institutional infrastructure in the Middle East from which, down the line, true democracy can emerge.