Bush's demands also provoked a fierce debate, not only among countries that belong to Nato but also among many other members of the United Nations, over the exact role of Nato. What is the purpose of Nato's mission in Afghanistan? If it is a North Atlantic military alliance, what are its combat troops doing in a faraway Muslim country like Afghanistan? Is it part of a stabilisation mission to help the Afghan government to develop its economy and civil institutions like the police and the judiciary, or is it participating in a civil war as an instrument of American foreign policy?

At the end of the Second World War Western Europe was utterly exhausted. Its economy lay in ruins. Militarily, the situation was not very much better. Wartime armies had been reduced in size, and there was not enough money to replace the military equipment. To make things worse, there was no consensus on joint defence planning. But the whole of Eastern Europe was under the control of the Soviet army. Relations between the Soviet Union and Western Europe were getting worse day by day. There was a genuine fear among the Europeans about the real intentions of the vast Soviet armies stationed in Eastern Europe.

Therefore, in March 1948, Britain, France and the Low countries signed a collective defence treaty, which came to be known as the Brussels Treaty. Very soon the members of the Brussels Treaty realised that militarily they were so weak that without the active participation of the United States they would never be able to withstand a Soviet invasion. In 1949, the Brussels Treaty was expanded to include the United States and Canada. Thus, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was born. Article 6 defines the geographic scope of the treaty by clearly stating that the treaty covers "an armed attack on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe and North America."

Today, there is no military threat from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Both of them have disappeared. Yet, Nato not only exists but has even grown in size. Currently, Nato has got 26 members, some of whom are former members of the Warsaw Pact. Some neo-cons want Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan and even Georgia to become members of Nato. By no stretch of imagination can these countries be considered as part of the North Atlantic geographic area. So what is a trans-Atlantic military alliance supposed to do in this post- Cold War era?

According to the Defence Planning document issued by Nato at the end of the summit, Nato will have to fight global terrorism, meaning the so-called Islamic terrorism. But the question is: Can Islamic terrorism be defeated militarily without addressing the root causes like the presence of Western combat troops in and around Muslim countries, and economic exploitation?

To many Muslims Nato represents American imperialism. Coming after centuries of European colonial rule over most of the Muslim world American imperialism is perceived as a continuation of the West's long onslaught against Islam. This imperial policy has created a pervasive sense of injustice, humiliation and outrage among the Muslims. This sense of humiliation has been further aggravated by unconditional American military and economic support for Israel and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Afghan nation, like any other nation, does not like the presence of foreign armies on its soil. The Afghans, like the Vietnamese, do not believe in America's propaganda on democracy, or the new "domino theory."

The reality of the Afghan situation is that there is no such thing as a democratic government. Although, nominally, Hamid Karzai is the president the country is being effectively run by General Richards, the commander of the Nato forces. These combat troops are considered by many Afghans and Muslims to be occupation forces who are being used as instruments of America's aggressive foreign policy in the Muslim world. If Nato wants to be present in Afghanistan it should withdraw its combat troops and participate in UN sponsored development projects to help build self-sustaining economies and civil institutions. This, in the long run, will prove to be a more effective way of fighting terrorism than waging colonial wars.