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:

• The National Security Archive. (2023). Retrieved May 17, 2023, from https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/
• The Center for Strategic and International Studies. (2023). Retrieved May 17, 2023, from https://www.csis.org/
• The Council on Foreign Relations. (2023). Retrieved May 17, 2023, from https://www.cfr.org/

Opposing Organizations and Websites:

• The Costs of War Project. (2023). Retrieved May 17, 2023, from https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
• The Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs. (2023). Retrieved May 17, 2023, from https://watson.brown.edu/
• The Center for American Progress. (2023). Retrieved May 17, 2023, from https://www.americanprogress.org/

Supporting Podcasts:

• Cohen, E. (Host). (2023, May 17). War College [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from https://www.warcollege.co/
• Barbaro, M. (Host). (2023, May 17). The Daily [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/column/the-daily
• Morell, M. (Host). (2023, May 17). Intelligence Matters [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/intelligence-matters-a-cbs-news-original-national-security-podcast/

Opposing Podcasts:

• Dolan, J., Ames, M. (Hosts). (2023, May 17). The War Nerd [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from https://www.patreon.com/radiowarnerd
• Reynolds, D., Anthony, G. (Hosts). (2023, May 17). The Dollop [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from https://allthingscomedy.com/podcast/the-dollop
• Glass, I. (Host). (2023, May 17). This American Life [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from https://www.thisamericanlife.org/

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.

Alcohol is a bigger problem for America than terrorism

Belief: Alcohol is a bigger problem for America than terrorism.

Reasons to agree:

1. Alcohol causes significantly more deaths than terrorism

   • Alcohol-related deaths in America far exceed those caused by terrorism.

   • Approximately 85,000 deaths per year in the U.S. are attributed to alcohol.

   • Every year, tens of thousands of lives are lost prematurely due to alcohol, affecting families and communities.

2. Alcohol contributes to a high percentage of deaths from various causes

   • 60% of homicides involve alcohol.

   • 45% of deaths in automobile accidents are alcohol-related.

   • 40% of accidental falls involve alcohol use.

   • 30% of deaths from fire-related accidents are due to alcohol.

   • 30% of accidental drownings are alcohol-related.

   • 30% of suicides involve alcohol.

   • 15% of deaths from respiratory diseases are linked to alcohol.

   • 5% of deaths from circulatory diseases are linked to alcohol.

3. The economic and social burden of alcohol is immense

   • Alcohol-related problems cost the U.S. $249 billion in 2010 (CDC).

   • Lost productivity, healthcare costs, law enforcement, and crime linked to alcohol impose a far greater economic burden than terrorism.

   • Families and communities experience long-term suffering due to alcohol-related violence, abuse, and health issues.

4. It's not just that one is worse than another. Its the stupidity and fear mongering from the media and the government that is the problem and that indicate that we are not a serious nation. 

---

Reasons to disagree:

1. Terrorism is an external threat, while alcohol abuse is a personal choice

   • Unlike terrorism, alcohol consumption is primarily an issue of personal responsibility and societal norms. The government has a right to address problems with security, but not individual choice. It's not wrong for the government and society to focus on issues that the government should focus on, even if we agree that they shouldn't fearmonger. 

   • Government efforts against terrorism involve security measures while fighting alcohol abuse is more about education, regulation, and cultural problems. 

2. Prohibition has historically failed

   • The U.S. already attempted to combat alcohol consumption through prohibition, which failed and increased organized crime.

   • Restrictive alcohol laws have generally led to illegal trade rather than a decrease in consumption.

---

Interest/Motivation of those who agree:

1. Public health advocates are concerned about preventable deaths.

2. Families who have lost loved ones due to alcohol-related incidents.

3. Organizations working to reduce alcohol abuse and its societal impact.

4. Policymakers looking to address alcohol-related public health crises.

Interest/Motivation of those who disagree:

1. The alcohol industry and businesses that profit from alcohol sales.

2. Advocates for personal freedom and individual responsibility.

3. Law enforcement agencies focused on combating terrorism.

4. People who see terrorism as a more immediate and intentional threat.

---

Shared Interests Between Those Who Agree and Disagree:

1. Public safety – Both sides agree that reducing harm to Americans is important.

2. Health and well-being – Preventing unnecessary deaths, whether from alcohol or terrorism, is a shared goal.

3. Policy effectiveness – Both sides seek policies that are practical and effective in addressing threats.

4. Economic stability – Ensuring that regulations or policies do not cause unintended financial burdens.

Opposing Interests (Key Obstacles Preventing Resolution):

1. Freedom vs. Regulation – Alcohol is a personal choice, whereas terrorism is a criminal act.

2. Prioritization of threats – Some view terrorism as a more urgent problem than alcohol-related deaths.

3. Industry interests – The alcohol industry lobbies against strict regulations, while anti-terrorism measures face less opposition.

4. Cultural acceptance – Alcohol consumption is normalized in American society, making drastic measures against it unpopular.

---

Evidence that agrees:

1. Alcohol-related deaths outnumber terrorism deaths in the U.S. annually.

2. The CDC and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism report that alcohol causes more preventable deaths than many other public health crises.

3. Economic data shows that alcohol-related costs are much higher than anti-terrorism spending.

Evidence that disagrees:

1. Terrorism has long-term social and psychological impacts beyond immediate deaths.

2. The U.S. spends significantly more on anti-terrorism efforts, indicating a governmental priority.

3. Alcohol abuse is seen as an individual choice, whereas terrorism is a direct threat to national security.

---

Most Likely Benefits:

1. Increased awareness and education about alcohol-related harm.

2. More effective policies to reduce alcohol abuse and prevent deaths.

3. Redirection of public concern and resources toward alcohol-related prevention efforts.

4. Reduced healthcare and criminal justice costs associated with alcohol-related incidents.

Most Likely Costs:

1. Potential backlash from those who see alcohol as a personal freedom issue.

2. Economic losses for the alcohol industry and related businesses.

3. Difficulty in implementing effective alcohol control measures without unintended consequences.

4. Risk of increasing black-market alcohol sales if regulations become too strict.

---

Books that agree:

1. Drunken Comportment: A Social Explanation by Craig MacAndrew.

2. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control by David F. Musto.

Books that disagree:

1. Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition by Daniel Okrent.

---

Local, Federal, and International Laws that agree:

1. State and federal DUI laws aim to reduce alcohol-related accidents.

2. Alcohol tax policies are designed to discourage excessive consumption.

Laws that disagree:

1. The repeal of Prohibition (21st Amendment) demonstrates a legal preference for alcohol regulation over bans.

---

Videos that agree:

1. TED Talk: The Harm in a Drink.

2. Documentary: HBO’s Risky Drinking.

Videos that disagree:

1. TED Talk: Why Prohibition Never Works.

---

People who agree:

1. Public health advocates working to reduce alcohol-related harm.

2. Families of alcohol-related accident victims raising awareness about the dangers of drinking.

People who disagree:

1. Alcohol industry representatives advocating for responsible but unrestricted drinking.

2. Security analysts emphasizing terrorism as a greater national threat.

---

Objective Criteria for Assessing the Validity of this Belief:

1. Annual statistics comparing alcohol-related deaths to terrorism deaths.

2. Economic cost analysis of alcohol abuse versus terrorism response.

3. Public perception studies on alcohol-related harm versus fear of terrorism.

---

Most Likely Root Cause of Associated Problems:

1. Cultural normalization of alcohol – Drinking is widely accepted despite its dangers.

2. Media focus on terrorism – Public perception of risk is skewed by media coverage.

---

Conclusion:

• Alcohol causes significantly more deaths and economic costs than terrorism.

• Terrorism is an intentional, external threat, while alcohol-related deaths result from societal and personal choices.

• While alcohol’s impact is clear, addressing it requires a different approach than counter-terrorism measures.