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

Reasons to agree:

1. Alcohol consumption leads to many societal and health problems.
2. Alcohol-related harm impacts the drinker and those around them.
3. The number of deaths related to alcohol far outstrips deaths caused by terrorism.
4. Alcohol causes 85,000 deaths in America each year. That's more than a statistic. That is 100,000 individuals with faces. 100,000 individuals with lives not fully lived. 100,000 individuals were grieved by mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and children. Every year
5. 60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.
6. 45% of all deaths in automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol.
7. 40% of all deaths due to accidental falls are attributed to alcohol.
8. 30% of all deaths from accidents caused by fire and flames are attributed to alcohol.
9. 30% of all accidental drownings are attributed to alcohol.
10. 30% of all suicides are attributed to alcohol.
11. 15% of all deaths from diseases of the respiratory system are attributed to alcohol.
12. 5% of all deaths from circulatory system diseases are attributed to alcohol.

Reasons to disagree:

1. You can fight terrorism; you can't fight stupid people. Another way of saying the same thing: Unlike terrorism, alcohol consumption is essentially a personal choice and societal issue, not a direct security threat.
2. We tried abolition, but abolition didn't work. Another way of saying the same thing: Prohibition efforts have historically proven unsuccessful and damaging.

Score:

At a later date, the reasons, books, and web pages will be given a score. They will then contribute a percentage of a point to the overall idea score based on their individual score. Below are the total number of:

Reasons to agree: +9

Reasons to disagree: -2

Reasons to agree with reasons to agree: +0

Books that agree: +0

Books that disagree: -0

Web pages that agree: -0

Web pages that disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 7

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason (argument, movie, book, webpage, etc) to agree or disagree.

Pro Evidence

1. Alcohol is responsible for more deaths each year than opioids (source: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism).
2. Alcohol-related issues cost the United States approximately $249 billion in 2010 (source: CDC).
3. Con Evidence
4. Prohibition led to increased organized crime and didn't significantly decrease alcohol consumption (source: History.com).

Pro Books

1. "Drunken Comportment: A Social Explanation" by Craig MacAndrew
2. "The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control" by David F. Musto

Con Books:

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

Pro Videos

1. TED Talk: "The Harm in a Drink"
2. Documentary: HBO's "Risky Drinking"

Con Videos

1. TED Talk: "Why Prohibition Never Works"

Pro Organizations and Websites

1. Alcoholics Anonymous
2. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

Con Organizations and Website:

1. Reason Foundation
2. Cato Institute

Pro Podcasts

1. Alcohol Mastery Podcast
2. The Bubble Hour

Con Podcasts

1. The Cato Daily Podcast

Pro Experts

Unbiased Experts

1. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

Benefits of Belief Acceptance

1. Physiological Needs: Improved health due to less alcohol-related disease
2. Safety Needs: Reduced accidents and violence linked to alcohol
3. Social Belonging: Stronger relationships due to less alcohol-related strife
4. Esteem: Greater personal accomplishment from managing alcohol consumption
5. Self-Actualization: More clarity and focus on personal goals

Ethics

1. Beneficence: Reducing harm caused by alcohol improves public health and welfare
2. Justice: Acknowledging the societal impact of alcohol can lead to better policies and interventions

Recognizing that alcohol may be a bigger problem than terrorism doesn't necessarily imply a call for law changes or the reintroduction of Prohibition-like restrictions. It's an assessment of societal issues, public health concerns, and cultural dynamics that can be distorted by collective attention bias. This perspective underscores the potential need for amplified education, advocacy, and supportive systems to mitigate the effects of alcohol misuse.

Moreover, comparing the impacts of alcohol to terrorism accentuates the ways we prioritize and respond to divergent societal challenges. This comparison facilitates conversations about resource distribution, policy formation, and societal perspectives.

Ultimately, these discussions aim to foster a better understanding, stimulate productive dialogues, and uncover innovative solutions that enhance public health and societal well-being, underpinned by a focused, organized cost-benefit analysis for making informed decisions.

Fundamental Beliefs or Principles:

1. The comparison between alcohol and terrorism assumes that both factors significantly impact American society.
2. Rejecting this belief implies disagreement with the premise that alcohol-related issues pose a comparable or larger societal challenge than terrorism.

Alternate Expressions:

1. "Alcohol's impact in America overshadows the terror threat."
2. #AlcoholVsTerrorism

Belief Validation Criteria:

1. The strength of this belief could be assessed by examining statistical data on alcohol-related fatalities, economic costs, healthcare expenses, societal impacts versus the number of lives lost, economic damage, and societal trauma caused by terrorism.

Key Stakeholders:

1. Critical stakeholders include public health officials, alcohol industry, anti-alcohol & sobriety advocacy groups, law enforcement, counter-terrorism experts, government policymakers, and the public. Their interests and objectives can range from public safety, economic prosperity, freedom of choice, to national security.

Common Ground:

1. All parties likely share a common interest in ensuring public safety, health, and well-being.
2. They would also agree on reducing the harm caused by both alcohol misuse and terrorism.

Differences and Obstacles:
Significant differences include perceptions of threats and risk, societal attitudes toward alcohol and terrorism, and proposed solutions (law enforcement vs. public health strategies).

Dialogue Strategies:
Emphasizing shared values, utilizing empathetic listening, focusing on evidence-based discussions, fostering open and respectful dialogue, and promoting collaborative problem-solving can encourage commitment to reason and evidence-based conflict resolution.

Educational Resources:
Resources could include reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on alcohol-related harm, studies from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), research on terrorism's impact from institutions like the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and more.

Contextual Understanding:
Clarification of terms like "alcohol misuse," "public health issue," "terrorism," "societal impact," and "evidence-based decision making" can enhance understanding.

Your input is crucial in building an inclusive, evidence-based understanding of this topic. We invite you to contribute and explore these areas on our websites, Group Intel and Idea Stock Exchange, as part of our collective intelligence initiative.