“Especially if the country in question offers nothing of intrinsic value to the invading force.”

I wonder why they (The US) has never invaded North Korea?

By the way as far as I can remember the perpetrators of 9/11 were mainly from Saudi.
Why did not the US invade Saudi?

Joe,

"Because it does not provide a safe haven to forces which have attacked the U.S.."

Is that so?

Why then did the U.S. invade and occupy Iraq?

And why is the U.S. such good buddies with the Saudis - a major source of funding for al Qa'ida?

Joe,
You really shouldn't allow yourself to be confused by American propoganda. If you want to know a closer approximation to reality about the events of 9/11 read Griffin's book that I recommended earlier.
No, Afghanistan did not shelter the perpetrators of 9/11. The Americans blamed bin Laden to be sure, but never produced any evidence to support the claim. He was not on the FBI most wanted list for 9/11 and when the FBI was asked why not their spokesman said, with refreshing candour, because "they had no hard evidence linking bin Laden with 9/11".
The Taliban offered to send bin Laden to a neutral country for trial if the Americans produced any evidence of his link with 9/11. The Americans refused. You may think trial by assertion is an adequate substitute for proof but as a lawyer I certainly don't and it would be a sorry day if that was the case.
As a previuous commenter has pointed out, even according to the official conspiracy theory (the one promoted by the US and Australian governments) 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. None were Afghans.
As to al qaeda, again the history is rather more complex than your world view would allow. The term al qaeda is Arabic for "the list" and it originally referred to the mujihideen for training in Pakistan before infiltration into Afghanistan.
Since then it has served a variety of interests, including those of British and US intelligence, most recently in Libya and Syria. Read Ahmed's book The War on Truth, and Scott's The Road to 9/11 for filling the manifest gaps in your education.
The world is rather more complex than labelling critics such as myself "anti-American" or supporters of the Taliban's treatment of women. That is simply a substitute for asking the hard questions and seeking the even harder answers.

Ms Tranter, the pixie intellectual of Australian blogs; and, as usual, the usual anti-US rants follow.

As a first point let me observe that anyone who focuses on the half-arsed hegemony of the US and isnores the far worst oppression of Communism and Islam is a hypocrite and a coward.

The cowardice comes from knowing that any criticism of Islam is a fraugth exercise with dire consequences; just ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a real feminist not the faux type which this author typifies.

Hasbeen wrote "Tell me James, which part of the Afghan government were trying to improve the rights of women"
It was the government during the period 1979 - 1989 after which the Mujahideen financed and armed by the USA, brutally took over Afghanistan with USA support.
That is when the Aghanistan women once again had their Human rights taken away and were brutalised by the Mujahideen.

Hi Poirot,

Iraq ? A little unworthy of you, a cheap shot. Of course the US has aggressed on many occasions, ever since the invasion of Mexico and seizure of Texas. Its actions during the wars against Spain were appalling and self-serving, not to mention its overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatemala, its invasions of Panama, the Dominican Republic, Cuba (1), Cuba (2), Cuba (3) and Nicaragua (1) and (2).

But I could get funny too: are you suggesting that the US should invade Zimbabwe, on the same pretext as it did Iraq ? No, of course not. So let's get back to the issues instead of throwing cream buns at each other.

For all the conspiracy theories, did the Taliban harbour al Qa'ida, and did al Qa'ida organise the attacks on New York ? If so, then the Taliban 'government' was legitimately overthrown. I have no problem with that.

Iraq was of course an absurd side-issue to the struggle against Islamist terrorism, which, after Bali, Madrid, the weekly bombings in Thailand, Nigeria, Iraq (thanks to the Yanks), Pakistan, and elsewhere, I am fairly sure is a reality. The preoccupation with Iraq has put the whole effort in Afghanistan at risk.

But much of this is water under the bridge. Pandora's box has been opened. The women of Afghanistan, your sisters and my sisters, have been encouraged to exercise rights that you and I take for granted. Should the US have encouraged that ? How on earth can we say no ? That people should not exercise their basic human rights ? Is that what the Left has come down to ?

So to me, that's the genuine question: should the women of Afghanistan be abandoned, to satisfy the sensibilities of the soy latte set ?

Cheers,

Joe