>>Who really did carry out the attacks on the Intercontinental Hotel?>>

I don't much care.

No, I REALLY don't.

What I care about is that Australia high tails it out of there immediately.

Not as soon as possible.

Not when the Americans leave.

But today.

Afghanistan is not worth the life of one more Australian soldier or the expenditure of one more Australian dollar.

I understand we are in Afghanistan because we need to show our most important allies that they can rely on us. I don't despise that motive. It is in our interest to keep the US engaged in the Asia Pacific. The US Navy helps keep the Pacific "pacific" which is important for Australia's enormously long supply routes.

But there are other ways we can engage with the US. This is getting ridiculous.

Staying in Afghanistan is not in Australia's interests and it's not in America's either.

"Afghanistan is not worth the life of one more Australian soldier or the expenditure of one more Australian dollar."

That pretty well sums up the majority of Australian thought.

Go in there and wipe out the problem, or pull out, and stop the war industries for making pointless human-death profits from the whole affair.

If the US and alike are going to have a WAR! go in there boots and all, and at least make it look like there's a point to all the deaths so far.

LEAP

The connection of this terrorist attack with the ISI is well taken.

The mainstream media reports have memories that would not extend to the September 2008 suicide attack on the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad Pakistan http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2008/10/islamabad-marriott-hotel-bombing.html where ISI links appeared probable.

Our theory is that both Hotel attacks are an odd combination of protection racket and religious extremist attack. That is that a regional protection racket that collects money from large businesses (such as Hotels) who wish not to be bombed dupes Muslim extremists into targeting non-paying businesses as symbols of Western infidel defilement.

The combination of corruption/Muslim extremism/ISI has been a constant theme for decades. "Shaking down" hotels is a worthy racket true to form.

see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2008/10/islamabad-marriott-hotel-bombing.html

Pete

The security racket in Afghanistan is a far-reaching phenomenon. The main highways are all littered with the carcasses of fuel tanker trucks , half of which have been deliberately set alight to exhort protection money. So far there hasn't been any speculation that these sorts of protection gambits would extend to hotel attacks but there does seem to be no limit to the lengths of destruction that people will go to to protect their businesses. This truly is a war economy.

The Afghan economy is headed for the gurgler anyway.

From the NY Times:

>>Over the next three years, however, as the American military and civilian presence — and spending — decrease, thousands of jobs will end for Afghans who work at or around bases and under grants and contracts financed by the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development.

Afghans and American civilian and military planners fear that the country will fall into an economic abyss, sending some Afghans back into the insurgency and deepening the poverty of people throughout the country.>>

On one level I do have some empathy for the Afghans- especially the women. Their situation, already bad, can only get worse as the Taliban re-establishes control over Afghanistan.

But I still think Afghanistan is not worth the life of one more Australian soldier or the expenditure of one more Australian dollar.

Afghanistan has been a hellhole for women for centuries and it is beyond our powers to change that

I have to wonder why Afghanistan is militarily or politically important to the West? Ok, it was supposed to be the home base of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, and appears to be the home of the Taliban, but why is its stability and governance not of greater importance to the Muslim and Arab world than has been demonstrated thus far?

Are we there for religious reform? Is it for the sake of the women? Or, are we there for counter-terrorism? If so, surely all of this is something the West has to take up much more vociferously with the Muslim and Arab world, rather than just by military intervention?

Could Pakistan, or western relations with Pakistan be the key? Or is the West rightly afraid of a takeover of the Muslim and Arab world by the Taliban, and thus afraid of a potential major conflict of WW3 proportions? Or is the aim ultimately to protect oil supply?

Can parallels be drawn with the intervention in Libya? In Syria? Could it be that Tunisia has started a movement which could threaten to reshape western/mid-east relations?

Is it possible that we are seeing a new "Domino Theory" in operation, but this time concerning middle-east stability and not only oil security but world security? If this is the case, and if this time the threat is real, then it would appear appropriate for a much more concerted effort be made in Afghanistan, both militarily and through much more strenuous engagement in diplomatic relations with the Muslim and Arab world as a whole.

Many questions, but I have no answers.

Saltpetre

I cannot think of a single reason that justifies the costs in lives and dollars of remaining in Afghanistan.

Saltpetre wrote, "I have to wonder why Afghanistan is militarily or politically important to the West? ... are we there for counter-terrorism?"

That's the stated reason why Australia participated in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and that's the stated reason why Australia remains in Afghanistan 10 years later.

Given that, according to the official narrative, members of al Qaeda successfully launched September 11 from bases in Afghanistan and then (except for Khaleid Sheikhh Mohammed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed), who has yet to be put on trial for 9/11), evaded capture for almost 10 years since the occupation of Afghanistan began, should we be surprised that either they or their Taliban allies are able to pull off actions like the attacks on the Intercontinental Hotel?

SaltPetre: Google "Afghanistan gas pipeline"...many answers to be found when you follow the money.
If you understand that Iraq was not about WMDs, nor "regime change" but oil, then you can understand Afghanistan quite easily...just don't rely on the media to bring the relevant facts to light.

In my experience, there is always more than one reason major powers do something as important as engage in warfare. Firstly, the person who claimed responsibilty for the Sept 11 attacks, and boasted he was planning more, was not arrested by Afghanistan and would not surrender to US authorities, giving the US the right to enter the country to attempt to arrest or kill him.
And then there's oil and gas. Afghanistan's north, and the countries to its north, have extensive oil fields, and oil and gas lines through Afghanistan is the oil companies' preferred route, through to profitable markets in Asia.
Many among US policymakers believe these to be quite sufficient reasons to go to war. But they are not reasons enough for Australia to follow. This we did in slavish belief that we must forever pay our dues under ANZUS. Rubbish.
The Sept 11 attacks threw the international spotlight on Afghanistan as never before, and international intervention, the current name for war, has needed more than commercial justification for some time. This intervention has even been named humanitarian at times, and so Afghan society has come into sharp focus.
If foreign troops leave now, it is certain that Taliban, and others like them, will be successful in their attempt to enforce their version of Islam on the country, over the dead bodies of any dissenters if necessary. These are the forces who do not wish to have their capacities disrupted by the presence and activity of foreign troops.
The question is, are there enough Afghanis, with enough capacity, to resist that process when foreign troops do eventually leave. Caring about this is the direct consequence of calling warfare humanitarian intervention.