AOL News last Sunday highlighted the insecurity pervading the G-8 Summit in Toronto, Canada. The meeting of the heads of rich eight countries drew, as usual, violent protests. It is indicated that the police behaved as if it was breaking up an African-American rally before Dr. Martin Luther King fell a martyr to his cause in the United States. The bizarre approach of the security agency to protect those in power with a no-holds-barred approach invoked widespread condemnation. It was Mayor David Miller who defined the public sentiment. This isnt our Toronto and my response is anger, asserted Miller on MP24 Television. He added: Every Torontonian should be outraged by this. Such summits indeed attract widespread protests due to the frustrating ground realities as a matter of record. So the Toronto moot may have set up a new record of mishandling of the dissident crowd which sparked off violence leading to arrest of about 500 protestors and damage to some property. Naturally such an upsurge gave rise to many conspiracy theories which found liberal expose in the media. The most shocking was that the Canadian police got the protests infiltrated by their 'con men which gave then a handle to brutalise the people, who were demonstrating agai-nst issues like exploitation, denial of rights and discrimination. For such a thing to happen in Canada is most regrettable which generally has a highly law-abiding society in the world. The final statement was a typical collection of ifs and buts which promotes the art of holding such meetings. In the doom and gloom haunting the world since the neocons came to power in the US, the world economy is generally experiencing awful turmoil despite the tactics of the capitalist experts. No wonder the European Union is facing mounting distress due to the cat and mouse game which has dominated its existence so far. The US was set to nosedive economically by the last administration and President Ba-rack Obama has been bravely struggling to turn the corner without much success so far amid vicious aspersions from the rightwing. Such surreal strategy appeared to have been based on capturing the Iraqi oil resources and maintaining a hold on Afghanistan as if it was Philippines. Many people believe the world over that this was done as the US oil lobby in cahoots with 'special interests was hand-in-glove with the leading figures of the last administration. However, it is difficult to decide which loss would have more serious ramifications for the US; economic or image-wise after having invaded two countries that refused to be over-awed by its (US) asymmetric power amid charges of its atrocious use in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If history is any guide, the latter has always done the same against many empires and brought them grief, the worst being the Soviet Empire which evaporated after its defeat in the Hindu Kush mountains and valiant valleys like Panjsher/Helmand. The final statement also indicated a five-year time-line before an exit may take place from Afghanistan. It appears to be a political declaration which apparently runs counter to whatever is being said by the US media even if one ignores the McChrystal-related aphorisms. The G-8 also then swelled into a meeting of G20. It is strange that while the G-8 summit attended by President Obama foresaw US/NATO involvement for another five years, the British top commander expressed his 'personal opinion advocating talks with the Tali-ban. The fact remains that Mr Cameron, the British Prime Minister, also was a party to the joint declaration issued at the end of the summit. Even more baffling is the fact that the opinion of the British general is given wide publicity by the media. While these are distinct signs of a baffled power game being played by the US with 'on again, off again NATO allies, the debate in the US has been ignited by the Rolling Stone drama. Robert Dreyfuss, an independent journalist in Washington DC, while castigating the COIN Strategy being followed emphasises: Afghanistan is the place where theories of warfare go to die; and if the COIN theory isnt dead yet it has utterly failed so far to prove itself. Panetta should learn from Dreyfuss, who understands Afghanistan and the region. The CIA chief claimed that events in Afghanistan had gone the way nobody expected. This betrays the height of ignorance. He can ask and learn from Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, as well as a former Director CIA. If he had ever thought of whatever happened to the Soviet Empire in the 80s, he would know that Afghanistan is no Granada. Henry Kissinger has also opined on the same topic in Washington Post under the heading America needs an Afghan Strategy not an alibi. His sound analysis culminates in his remark: Afghanistan becomes an international issue whenever an outside power seeks to achieve unilateral do-minance. While putting too much emphasis on a 'regional approach, he downgrades the basic lesson of history. The fate of various empires which dared to conquer it has proved that the Afghans never shy away from challenging an occupation force, regardless of its asymmetrical power and arrogance. Only since 1980 about seven million Afghans have perished at the hands of the former Soviet Union and now the US as many more have been devastated and the country destroyed by hellish fire power used against them. However, they keep on fighting with a sense of mission to avenge the wrongs done to them as per their traditions, history backed up by a wonderful topography. President Obama displayed his mastery of diplomatic techniques in answering a question by a correspondent about Pakistans role to peace-overtures in Afghanistan at the end of the G20 Summit in Toronto. He described the same as a useful step, but also added: I think it is too early to tell. I think we have to view these efforts with scepticism but also with openness. Such phraseology would have peeved even Lord Francis Bacon or Bertrand Russell. Apparently, McChrystal may have left in good time though nobody can approve of the aspersions cast on the political leaders. It appears to be turning into a game of 'word power, as defined by Robert Fisk in a recent article, which is blatantly dominated by spin. Is fair and foul mixing badly? The writer is a former Interior Secretary.