The War in Afghanistan (aka Operation Enduring Freedom) will reach its eighth year on Oct. 7, 2009.

According to our beloved Wikipedia, the situation has clearly deteriorated. A whopping 6,625 people have been killed, a statistic that includes the Afghan security forces, the Northern Alliance, the coalition and the contractors. There’s no doubt about it — Afghanistan is a hot spot and it’s an issue that will not be solved easily in the near future.

The Obama administration understands this and acknowledges that Afghanistan should have been the main focus in the “War on Terror.” Despite the fact that this seems to be common sense, the Bush administration defied all logical reasoning with regard to foreign policy. Please, though, don’t take my word for it. Just turn on the news and see the repercussions of the Bush era strategy on NATO. There is an inherent paradox in vehemently asking our allies to come to our aid in Afghanistan, and then when they do in fact comply, instead going gallivanting into Iraq.

Of course, this policy is derived from the neoconservative ideology or “Bush Doctrine” that advocates for preemptive strikes on whole nations in order to implement “freedom” and “democracy.” This doctrine has managed to simultaneously damage the faith that our allies abroad once had in us and to foment partisan divisiveness at home.

Nonetheless, the conflict in Afghanistan is a major problem, and it must not be taken lightly. Thankfully there are rays of hope, however dim they may seem.

First, President Obama has learned from the mistakes of his predecessor and is resolved and committed to stabilizing the region. According to an article in Foreign Affairs, Obama has sent 17,000 troops to the turbulent areas of Helmand and Kandahar, as well as an increase of 4,000 soldiers to actually train our Afghan allies. Second, contrary to the neoconservative approach of alienation with respect to potential Afghan cooperation, Obama is showing a move toward conciliation. This has mainly been a matter of simply distinguishing between al-Qaida and the Taliban. Third, Obama’s choice of removing General David McKiernan as commander and replacing him with the more skilled counter-insurgency expert General Stanley McChrystal — commended for the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — is a step in the right direction.

Although these are significant improvements, there are still things that must be reevaluated.

If we truly want to lay the foundations for a healthy democracy in Afghanistan, then Obama must finally depart from the Bush-Era policy of undermining the parliamentary system. Rather than giving disproportionate power solely to President Hamid Karzai, who has proved to be corrupt beyond belief, US forces ought to allow the majority Pashtun population to have its voice heard.

I was in utter disbelief over the fact that, according to the same article in Foreign Affairs, during Karzai’s reign provincial governors were chosen by him, instead of being voted on locally. I am sure that if a more democratic approach along these lines is established, then this will alleviate the major security problems and allow people to simply go to the polls and actually vote.

Hey, at least we’ve come along way from the days when Bush addressed the nation with these words: “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts [Sept. 11, 2001 attacks] and those who harbor them.”