Revisiting a Past Issue: Should We Have Eliminated Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan & Pakistan?

In an era defined by contentious politics and polarized viewpoints, I am proposing a refreshing new model for political discourse and decision-making—one that leans on reason, evidence, and systematic scrutiny of every policy issue. Imagine if funds, usually directed towards expensive advertising campaigns, were instead allocated towards the creation of a dedicated forum. A forum specifically designed for the systematic assembly and evaluation of arguments for and against pertinent policy issues.

In this proposed political party, politicians would be obligated to express their level of agreement or disagreement with each argument, thereby placing a strong emphasis on evidence-based decision-making. They would pay particular attention to the top 10 pro and con arguments on each issue, assigning a percentage score to reflect the extent of their agreement or disagreement. Their voting behavior should then align with the stance backed by the preponderance of credible evidence.

For public transparency and accountability, we would maintain a track record of politicians' consistency in accepting or dismissing different types of evidence over time. This innovative approach enables the public to measure whether their representatives' decisions and legislative actions consistently correspond with the evidence.

America was or would have been, justified in eliminating al Qaeda from Afghanistan & Pakistan


Reasons to agree:

  1. Al-Qaeda, the orchestrator of the devastating 9/11 attacks, has persistently threatened the United States and its allies.
  2. Al-Qaeda remains active in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
  3. The potential for Al-Qaeda to orchestrate another significant attack is a persisting threat.


Reasons to disagree:

  1. The war in Afghanistan has been ongoing for over two decades, with thousands of American soldiers' lives lost and little to show in terms of achieving stated objectives.
  2. Invasions and occupations often result in destabilization of the region and inadvertently create a vacuum that breeds more terrorism.
  3. Diplomacy and international cooperation should be our tools for dealing with international terrorism, rather than military invasions.
  4. It would be nice if we could, but we can't, so we won't. Republicans should be realistic. 

  5. We would like to believe that all government welfare was effective, but we have to be cold-eyed realists and spend our money only on those programs that actually work, not the ones that make us feel good about ourselves, like Democrats. In the same way, we need to be realistic about Afghanistan. 

  6. If something is not working, you have to change it.

  7. It comes down to something you can't prove, but we must debate. People who say Romney is wrong would argue that: It would be better if we weren't over there. What are your arguments?

Supporting Data & Studies:

  1. A 2017 study by the RAND Corporation noted that Al-Qaeda still poses a threat to the U.S and its allies.
  2. A 2018 report by the United Nations Security Council confirmed Al-Qaeda's active presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Opposing Data & Studies:
  1. The war in Afghanistan has been ongoing for over two decades, with thousands of American soldiers' lives lost and little to show in terms of achieving stated objectives.
  2. Invasions and occupations often result in destabilization of the region and inadvertently create a vacuum that breeds more terrorism.
  3. Diplomacy and international cooperation should be our tools for dealing with international terrorism, rather than military invasions.

Supporting Books:

  1. "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright
  2. "The 9/11 Commission Report"
  3. "The Afghanistan Papers" by Craig Whitlock

Opposing Data & Studies:

  1. The Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs report stating the war in Afghanistan has cost the US over $2 trillion.
  2. The Costs of War Project's report highlighting the death of over 100,000 people due to the war in Afghanistan.

Supporting Videos:

  1. "Zero Dark Thirty"
  2. "The Hunt for Bin Laden"
  3. "The 13th Warrior"

Opposing Movies/Documentaries:

  1. "Restrepo" - a documentary on the war in Afghanistan.
  2. "Korengal" - a documentary on a platoon in the Korengal Valley.
  3. "Armadillo" - a documentary on Danish soldiers in the war in Afghanistan.

Supporting Organizations:

Opposing Organizations and Websites:

Supporting Podcasts:

Opposing Podcasts:

Supporting Experts:

  1. Riedel, B. (2023). Bruce Riedel - Profile. Brookings Institution. Retrieved May 17, 2023, from https://www.brookings.edu/experts/bruce-riedel/
  2. Hayden, M. (2023). Michael Hayden - Profile. The Chertoff Group. Retrieved May 17, 2023, from https://www.chertoffgroup.com/team/michael-v-hayden
  3. Brennan, J. (2023). John Brennan - Profile. Fordham University. Retrieved May 17, 2023, from https://www.fordham.edu/info/23746/john_o_brennan

a) Fundamental beliefs or principles one must reject to also reject this belief:

  • The belief that Al-Qaeda still poses a significant threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan
  • The belief that military operations have been ineffective in combating Al-Qaeda
  • The belief that eliminating Al-Qaeda is not a crucial goal

b) Alternate expressions of this belief:

  • #EliminatingAlQaeda
  • "Achieving a Terrorism-Free Afghanistan & Pakistan"

c) Criteria to demonstrate the strength of this belief:

  • Analysis of reliable intelligence reports indicating a decline in Al-Qaeda activities
  • Assessing the effectiveness of counterterrorism measures implemented in the region
  • Examining the impact of military operations on Al-Qaeda presence and influence

d) Shared interests or values with potential dissenters that could promote dialogue and evidence-based understanding:

  • Ensuring regional stability and security
  • Countering the influence of extremist ideologies
  • Protecting civilian lives and human rights

e) Key differences or obstacles between agreeing and disagreeing parties that need addressing for mutual understanding:

  • Differing interpretations of available intelligence and data
  • Varying perspectives on the effectiveness of military actions
  • Differing assessments of the level of remaining Al-Qaeda presence and threat

f) Strategies for encouraging dialogue, respect, and using tools to gauge the evidence in this debate:

  • Establishing a platform for informed and evidence-based discussions
  • Promoting respectful engagement among participants
  • Utilizing fact-checking mechanisms and providing access to credible sources

g) To be considered educated on this topic, you must demonstrate comprehension of these key resources (books, articles, lectures, debates, etc.):

  • "The Longest War: The Enduring Conflict between America and Al-Qaeda" by Peter L. Bergen
  • "The Search for Al-Qaeda: Its Leadership, Ideology, and Future" by Bruce Riedel
  • Lectures by experts in counterterrorism and regional security
  • Debates on the effectiveness of military strategies in combating Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan
For the further exploration of this innovative, evidence-based political model, I encourage you to visit our platform, GroupIntel, and contribute to our open-source project on Github. These platforms provide a blueprint for how we can promote good ideas, foster nuanced debates, and contribute to a better understanding of our world. Together, let's envision and create a political future that values evidence, consistency, and transparency.











Posted by
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)