Five years ago, this was to be the first battle victory in the global war against terror. Washington and its allies stood firmly side by side. Afghanistan was to become a shining example of how a radical Muslim haven can change into a viable state based on democratic principles.

However, the current reality shows that something got jammed. Afghanistan was promised $20 billion for reconstruction, some of which the country has. But ordinary citizens have seen nothing of this money; most international funding has been divided among the local elite. Afghans continue to live in poverty, in growing dissapointment with their leaders. Many villagers have no option but to turn back to opium growing, which seems to have offered a record profit this year.

The security situation is just as bad. The United States has tried to destroy scattered Taliban radicals using tens of thousands of soldiers and the toughest means of warfare and not overdoing it in respect to human rights. Continuing attacks on coalition forces prove that not only was the resistance not broken, it is most likely on the rise.

Afghanistan once again confirms the old notion that no country in the world has ever been made stable for long by military force alone. It is somewhat ironic that NATO, too, has had a taste of this historic experience.

The mission remains NATO's priority, but the alliance alone is unlikely to change Afghanistan. This has to be done by the UN and numerous donors, like the European Union. The goals remain the same but the international community needs a new start. The strategy of the past five years was wrong. Sadly, those to pay the highest price for this error are ordinary Afghans — and NATO soldiers, Kučera writes.

Children of educated parents have easier access to higher education than children whose parents have no degree certificates, Jan Jandourek writes in Mladá fronta Dnes Nov. 30.

Is intelligence hereditary? Is a street paver's child likely to become another street paver? No.

What if the kid from the dynasty of street pavers wants to look at road paving from a civic engineer's perspective? Tough luck. The kids from the "intellectual" families will always be a step ahead because they were exposed to knowledge since the very day they were born and so they know how to speak well and behave in public. They have an advantage and they don't necessarily have to be smarter.

The remedy for such a situation may seem strange: It would help the poor if education were paid for.

You pay and you have knowledge, you study; you don't pay or don't have knowledge, you don't study.

It only seems like a paradox. Money can be provided by means of state-guaranteed student loans, and diligence is a matter for each individual. In reality, only one thing is anti-social: to fear tuition fees and in that way enable only those who grew up among "intellectuals" to study, Jandourek writes.