Kabul's Intercontinental Hotel, where I stayed for roughly a week last year during briefing and debriefing for my observation mission in Bamyan Province, was attacked last week by the Taliban.
News stories on the attack have, curiously, all hewn to two myths – one harmless and the other more troubling. The first myth found its way into the New York Times when a headline in the paper referred to the Intercontinental as a “luxury hotel” in a story by Alissa Rubin and Rod Nordland on June 28. Likewise, AP reporter Amir Shah used the word “luxury” to describe the hotel. Another AP story tells us that the Intercontinental is one of Kabul’s “premier” hotels.
Evidently, none of these journalists have ever set foot in the Intercontinental, which before last week’s attack was a rather forlorn concrete box set high on one of Kabul’s many hills. The hallways are dark tunnels, the plumbing and lighting are primitive, and the carpets look like they were laid down roughly when Bob Hope was still making Road pictures.
At least Jon Boone at the Guardian got it right when he referred to the Intercontinental as “old” and wrote that the aging hotel “is not the magnet to western travellers it once was, many of whom now stay in more recently built hotels.”
But even Boone repeated the second misconception that has appeared in stories about the attack all over the world: that the Intercontinental was secure. As Boone put it, the Intercontinental was “well defended” and “is impossible to approach without going through at least two security checkpoints.”
The Times and other sources made the same error. True, the Intercontinental is supposed to be approached via a narrow road that climbs uphill, complete with checkpoints and concrete barriers. And it is also true that on a typical day, at least three or four Afghan security guards stand outside the main entrance near the circular drive and parking area, in addition to other armed security personnel who roam about the grounds and the interior of the hotel.
But I imagine that just about any guest at the Intercontinental has tried to envision, as I did when I stayed there, what steps a determined group of insurgents would need to take in order to overwhelm the guards outside and storm the building.
The grounds surrounding the hotel on three sides are hilly, steep, and cluttered with trees and other foliage – perfect for hiding stealthy intruders armed with Kalashnikovs and rocket launchers as they approach the building on foot. It was obvious to me at the time that the hotel could be raided by even a small, coordinated group attacking from more than one direction.
To be fair, any large hotel in these circumstances is extremely vulnerable, and the Intercontinental’s isolated setting did have certain defensive advantages. But given the somewhat thin security at the Intercontinental, such an attack was inevitable.



















































