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.

In 1986, when President Reagan bombed Libya’s leader’s house in retaliation for Americans killed by Libya, Libya remained quiet for almost 25 years. Then, someone apologized.

Reasons to agree:

1. The bombing deterred Libya from further acts of terrorism

   • A Rand Corporation study found that Libya significantly reduced its involvement in terrorism after the U.S. airstrikes (Hoffman & White, 1991).

   • Libya’s aggressive actions against the U.S. declined for nearly 25 years after the attack.

2. It sent a strong message to adversaries

   • The Center for Strategic and International Studies found that the airstrikes signaled U.S. commitment to retaliating against terrorist sponsors (Cordesman, 1987).

   • Other hostile nations saw the consequences of state-sponsored terrorism, potentially deterring future threats.

3. Deterrence through military strength is historically effective

   • Military action is often necessary to maintain international security and prevent future attacks.

   • Countries that take decisive action against aggression are less likely to be targeted.

4. The apology may have emboldened adversaries

   • Weakness in foreign policy can be interpreted as an invitation for further aggression.

   • If Libya remained quiet after the bombing but later became hostile following U.S. diplomatic engagement, this could indicate that strength—not conciliation—was the key deterrent.

---

Reasons to disagree:

1. Libya's shift in behavior may have had other causes

   • Economic sanctions, diplomatic efforts, and internal changes may have influenced Libya’s actions more than the bombing.

   • A historical analysis suggests that Libya’s engagement with the West was due to economic necessity rather than military deterrence.

2. Apologies and diplomacy can foster better long-term relationships

   • Apologies and diplomatic outreach can help de-escalate conflicts and prevent future violence.

   • U.S.-Libya relations improved in the early 2000s, resulting in Libya abandoning its nuclear weapons program.

3. The bombing had unintended consequences

   • Civilian casualties and destruction fueled anti-American sentiment in Libya.

   • Hostile actions may have simply been postponed rather than prevented.

4. The deterrence argument is flawed

   • Historical case studies show that military action alone does not always prevent future threats.

   • Some adversaries may use attacks as propaganda to justify further hostility.

---

Interest/Motivation of those who agree:

1. Supporters of strong military deterrence as a national security strategy.

2. Advocates for aggressive counterterrorism policies.

3. Individuals who believe in realist foreign policy approaches.

4. Those who see Reagan’s actions as a model for handling rogue states.

Interest/Motivation of those who disagree:

1. Supporters of diplomatic conflict resolution.

2. Human rights activists concerned about civilian casualties.

3. Scholars who emphasize the long-term benefits of engagement over aggression.

4. Individuals who argue that economic and political pressures were more effective in Libya’s change in behavior.

---

Shared Interests Between Those Who Agree and Disagree:

1. National security – Both sides want to prevent terrorism and protect American lives.

2. Effective foreign policy – Each group seeks the best strategy for maintaining stability.

3. Preventing unnecessary conflict – Whether through military or diplomacy, the goal is to avoid future violence.

4. Learning from past actions – Both sides can analyze history to improve future decisions.

Opposing Interests (Key Obstacles Preventing Resolution):

1. Military force vs. diplomacy – Disagreement over which approach is more effective.

2. Short-term vs. long-term impact – Whether immediate deterrence or lasting diplomatic relations should be prioritized.

3. Ethical considerations – Civilian casualties vs. protecting national security.

4. Perceptions of strength vs. weakness – Whether an apology undermines or reinforces U.S. power.

---

Evidence that agrees:

1. Rand Corporation Study – Libya’s terrorism decreased after the 1986 bombing.

2. Center for Strategic and International Studies Report – The bombing served as a deterrent to other adversaries.

3. Analysis of post-strike data – Libya’s aggressive actions were significantly reduced for decades.

---

Evidence that disagrees:

1. Reports from humanitarian organizations – Civilian casualties and suffering caused by the bombing.

2. Historical case studies on deterrence theory – Military actions do not always prevent future attacks.

3. Studies on U.S.-Libya relations – Economic and diplomatic factors may have played a larger role in Libya’s behavior change.

---

Most Likely Benefits:

1. Clearer understanding of military deterrence in foreign policy.

2. Stronger national security policies informed by past experiences.

3. Improved strategic decision-making based on historical analysis.

4. Better evaluation of the role of diplomacy vs. military force in international relations.

---

Most Likely Costs:

1. Increased tensions between military and diplomatic advocates.

2. Potential misinterpretation of historical events leading to flawed policy decisions.

3. Long-term effects on international norms regarding the use of force.

4. Risk of repeating past mistakes if conclusions are not based on a full understanding of the situation.

---

Conclusion:

• The 1986 U.S. bombing of Libya correlated with a significant reduction in Libyan aggression towards the U.S. for a considerable period.

• However, the influence of diplomacy, economic sanctions, and internal Libyan dynamics provides a more complex picture.

• The impact of the later apology highlights an ongoing debate about the roles of deterrence and diplomacy in foreign policy.

• This historical event continues to inform current U.S. policy discussions on balancing military action and peaceful engagement.

Elected officials should not go to fund raisers once they are in office

Reasons to agree:

1. The issues that we face are complex enough that good smart men could spend all their time trying to solve our problems, and still not solve them. We have not hope of solving our problems if corrupt politicians spend all their time raising money so they can distort the truth in 30 second commercials.

The Pitfalls of Feel-Good Voting in Contemporary Politics

Supporting Evidence

Logical Arguments:

1. Long-term implications: Voting based solely on immediate emotional satisfaction can neglect long-term policy implications that affect daily life.
2. Substance over style: Voting should prioritize the candidate's policy positions and qualifications over charisma or image.

Supporting Evidence (Data, Studies):

1. Studies have shown that voters often prioritize short-term feelings over long-term policy outcomes. This includes the 'halo effect', where voters disproportionately favor charismatic candidates (Kinder, 1986).

Supporting Books:

1. "Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government" by Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels

Supporting Videos:

1. TED Talks like "The Irrationality of Politics" by Michael Huemer discuss the importance of rational decision-making in democracy.

Supporting Organizations and their Websites:

1. The Voter Participation Center

Supporting Podcasts:

1. "The Weeds" by Vox discusses in-depth policy issues that can influence voter decisions.

Unbiased Experts:

1. Political scientists such as Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels

Opposing Evidence

Logical Arguments:

1. Emotional intelligence: Voting based on empathy and human connection can lead to more compassionate policies.
2. Importance of motivation: Inspiring candidates can increase voter turnout and democratic participation.

Supporting Evidence (Data, Studies):

1. Research shows that charismatic leaders can motivate increased civic participation (Campbell et al., 1960).

Supporting Books:

1. "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt

Supporting Videos:

1. YouTube video "Why Do We Vote On Feelings?" by CGP Grey explores the importance of emotional appeal in elections.

Supporting Organizations and their Websites:

1. The Center for Emotional Intelligence

Supporting Podcasts:

1. "Hidden Brain" by NPR often discusses the emotional aspects of decision-making, including voting.

Unbiased Experts:

1. Psychologists like Jonathan Haidt

Further Exploration:

For a more comprehensive pro/con analysis and collective intelligence, visit Group Intel and Idea Stock Exchange.

Search Description:
"Examining the implications of feel-good voting in contemporary politics with evidence from various sources and perspectives."