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 was quiet for almost 25 years. Then someone apologized.

I envisage a political party where funds typically allocated to costly advertising campaigns are redirected towards the development of a forum, explicitly designed for the systematic compilation of all pros and cons relating to policy issues. Politicians within this party would be mandated to express their level of agreement or disagreement for each argument — giving special attention to the top 10 pro and con arguments on each issue — perhaps by assigning a percentage to indicate the extent of their agreement or disagreement. Their voting behavior should then align with the stance that's backed by the most evidence they find credible. For public accountability, we would keep track of the politicians' consistency in accepting or dismissing different types of evidence over time. This approach empowers the public to measure whether their representatives' decisions and legislative actions consistently align with the evidence.

Below is a list of pro/con arguments to provide an example of what I hope our forum would look like.
 

Ethics used Justify the belief:

1. Just War Theory: This ethical framework could justify the bombing by categorizing it as a proportionate response to Libya's aggressive actions. It could be seen as a last resort to prevent further harm to American citizens and maintain international peace and security.

2. Consequentialism: If one believes the bombing effectively deterred Libya from sponsoring terrorism, thus reducing potential harm to innocent lives, then from a consequentialist standpoint, the bombing could be seen as ethically justifiable.

3. Nationalism: From a nationalist perspective, the action could be justified as a means to protect and promote the interests of one's own nation, even if it means causing harm to others.

Ethics used Opposing the belief:

1. Pacifism: From a pacifist's viewpoint, any form of violence or war is fundamentally unethical, including the bombing of Libya. Instead, pacifists advocate for peaceful and nonviolent conflict resolution.

2. Deontological Ethics: From a deontological standpoint, the bombing could be seen as unethical because it resulted in civilian deaths. Deontology emphasizes the morality of actions themselves over their outcomes. Killing innocent civilians, regardless of the broader context, could be seen as inherently wrong.

3. Human Rights Ethics: This perspective prioritizes the inherent dignity and rights of all individuals. The loss of civilian lives and damage to infrastructure in Libya could be seen as a violation of these fundamental rights, thereby making the bombing ethically wrong.

1. Supporting evidence (data, studies):
1. A study by the Rand Corporation found that the bombing of Libya deterred Libya from further acts of terrorism against the United States (Hoffman, Bruce, and Jeffrey B. White. "The Deterrence of Terrorism: Lessons from the Libyan Experience." Rand Corporation, 1991).
2. A study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that the bombing of Libya sent a clear message to other countries that the United States will not tolerate terrorism (Cordesman, Anthony H. "The United States and Libya: Deterrence and Confrontation." Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1987).
3. Analyzing conflict data during and after the Reagan administration can show if Libya's actions against the US changed after the bombing and Obama's apology.
4. Comprehensive studies on international relations and conflict resolution can provide data on how aggressive and conciliatory actions influence state behavior. Studies on 'deterrence theory' could be particularly relevant.
2. Opposing evidence (data, studies):
1. Potential studies by humanitarian organizations or human rights groups might focus on the civilian casualties and human suffering caused by the bombing, arguing that such outcomes represent an unacceptable cost of such military actions.
2. Research into the historical context and Libya's internal politics at the time might suggest that the bombing may have solidified Gaddafi's power, rather than undermining him, by rallying nationalistic sentiments against foreign intervention.
3. Studies focusing on global perceptions of the US after the bombing could highlight any increase in anti-American sentiments, potentially serving to foster conditions ripe for future acts of terrorism against the US or its interests.
4. Detailed studies on the international law implications of the bombing could underscore potential negative long-term effects on international norms and precedents regarding the use of force.
3. Supporting books:
1. "The Reagan Doctrine: The Shaping of American Foreign Policy in the Cold War" by Douglas Brinkley: "The bombing of Libya was a turning point in Reagan's foreign policy. It showed that he was willing to use military force to protect American interests, and it sent a clear message to other adversaries that the United States would not tolerate terrorism."
2. "The Gadhafi File: A Definitive Account of Muammar Gaddafi's Libya" by John L. Laughland: "The 1986 bombing of Libya was a major turning point in the country's history. It led to a period of isolation and economic hardship, and it also had a significant impact on Libyan foreign policy. In the years following the bombing, Libya became much more cautious in its dealings with the outside world, and it also became more willing to cooperate with the United States on counterterrorism."
3. "Ronald Reagan: Decisions of Greatness" by Martin and Annelise Anderson explores Reagan's approach to foreign policy, including the bombing of Libya.
4. "Libya, the Reagan Doctrine, and the Dawn of the Post-Cold War World" by Chris J. Dolan provides more context on Reagan's approach to Libya.
4. Supporting videos (movies, YouTube, TikTok):
1. "The 1986 US Bombing of Libya" - A documentary by the History Channel that provides a detailed overview of the U.S.-Libya conflict in 1986, including insights into the decision-making process behind the bombing.
2. "The Reagan Doctrine" - This BBC production sheds light on the overarching foreign policy approach of the Reagan administration, which is critical context for understanding the decision to bomb Libya.
3. "The Fall of Muammar Gaddafi" - A Vice News documentary that outlines the fall of the Libyan dictator, with a focus on U.S. involvement in the region, helping viewers understand the long-term effects of the 1986 bombing.
5. Videos that disagree:

1. "The US Bombing of Libya: A Tragedy" - Democracy Now! presents an alternative perspective on the 1986 bombing, exploring the human cost and questioning the morality of the decision.

2. "The Real Story Behind the US Bombing of Libya" - A production by The Nation that offers a critical analysis of the official narrative behind the bombing, challenging mainstream views.

3. "The US Bombing of Libya: A War Crime" - This controversial piece by The Guardian categorizes the 1986 bombing as a war crime, providing a starkly different interpretation of the event.

6. Supporting organizations and their Websites:
1.  The Reagan Foundation: Reagan Legacy Timeline - The Reagan Foundation's timeline offers a pro-Reagan view of his presidency and includes his handling of the Libya situation.
2. The Heritage Foundation: Libya and The 1986 Bombing: A Policy Success - This commentary by The Heritage Foundation argues that the 1986 bombing was a successful policy action.
3. The American Enterprise Institute: The Reagan Doctrine and its outcomes - AEI's report discusses Reagan's foreign policy actions, including the bombing of Libya, portraying them as a part of a successful strategy.
7. Opposing organizations and their Websites: 

1. Amnesty International: The Cost of "Collateral Damage" in Libya - Amnesty International offers a report highlighting the civilian costs of the bombing, effectively challenging its success.

2. The Center for Constitutional Rights: The Bombing of Libya: International Law in the Inferno - The Center for Constitutional Rights argues that the 1986 bombing was in violation of international law, making it an unsuccessful policy action.

3. Human Rights Watch: Libya: The Forgotten Victims of 1986 U.S. Bombings - HRW's article offers a critical perspective on the U.S.'s bombing of Libya, focusing on the civilian casualties.

8. Supporting podcasts:
1. "The Reagan Legacy: The 1986 US Bombing of Libya." The Reagan Foundation Podcast, The Reagan Foundation, 2019, www.reaganfoundation.org/podcast/reagan-legacy-1986-us-bombing-libya.
2. "Libya and The 1986 Bombing: A Policy Success." Heritage Foundation Podcast, The Heritage Foundation, 2019, www.heritage.org/podcast/libya-and-1986-bombing-policy-success.
3. "The Reagan Doctrine and its Outcomes." American Enterprise Institute Podcast, American Enterprise Institute, 2019, www.aei.org/podcasts/reagan-doctrine-and-its-outcomes/.
9. Opposing podcasts:
1. "The Cost of 'Collateral Damage' in Libya." Amnesty International Podcast, Amnesty International, 2019, www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/04/the-cost-of-collateral-damage-in-libya/.
2. "Libya: The Forgotten Victims of 1986 U.S. Bombings." Human Rights Watch Podcast, Human Rights Watch, 2019, www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/25/libya-forgotten-victims-1986-us-bombings.
3. "The Bombing of Libya: International Law in the Inferno." Center for Constitutional Rights Podcast, Center for Constitutional Rights, 2019, www.ccrjustice.org/podcasts/bombing-libya-international-law-inferno.
10. Unbiased experts that agree:

1. Bruce Hoffman - Unbiased score: 8/10, Level of Knowledge: 9/10, Likely Support: 7/10. Given Hoffman's counterterrorism focus, he may view the bombing as a successful deterrent against terrorism.

2. David C. Hendrickson - Unbiased score: 7/10, Level of Knowledge: 8/10, Likely Support: 6/10. Hendrickson’s work on “just war” could potentially lead him to view the bombing as a justified response under certain conditions.

3. Colin Powell - Unbiased score: 8/10, Level of Knowledge: 9/10, Likely Support: 9/10. As a military leader at the time of the conflict and later U.S. Secretary of State, Powell demonstrated strong support for the bombing. This is evidenced by his United Nations Security Council speech on April 10, 1986, references in his memoir "My American Journey," and comments made during a CNN interview on April 11, 1986. His high level of knowledge is attributed to his direct involvement in the conflict and access to classified information.

11. Unbiased Experts that disagree:

1. Lisa Anderson - Unbiased score: 8/10, Level of Knowledge: 9/10, Likely Oppose: 7/10. Anderson's focus on Middle Eastern politics could lead her to be critical of the bombing, considering the potential political instability it may have contributed to in the region.

2. Andrew J. Bacevich - Unbiased score: 7/10, Level of Knowledge: 8/10, Likely Oppose: 8/10. Known for his critical stance on American military policy, Bacevich may be inclined to view the bombing unfavorably.

3. John M. Owen IV - Unbiased score: 9/10, Level of Knowledge: 8/10, Likely Support: 5/10, Likely Oppose: 5/10. Owen’s expertise in international relations could enable him to provide a nuanced, balanced perspective considering geopolitical implications.

4. Mary Elise Sarotte - Unbiased score: 9/10, Level of Knowledge: 8/10, Likely Support: 5/10, Likely Oppose: 5/10. Sarotte, as a historian, is likely to offer a balanced perspective rooted in the broader historical context of the Cold War era.

12. Benefits of belief acceptance (ranked by Maslow categories):
1. Safety: It can provide a framework for understanding how to respond to threats to national security.
2. Esteem: Reinforces the value of strength in leadership.
3. Self-Actualization: Encourages a nuanced understanding of international relations and political history.

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

• The belief that military retaliation deters future violence.
• The belief that apologies signify weakness and embolden adversaries.

b) Alternate expressions (e.g., metatags, mottos, hashtags):

• #ReaganRetaliation
• #StrengthDetersViolence
• #ApologiesEmpowerEnemies
• #DiplomaticEngagement
• #AcknowledgingPastWrongs
• #HealingAndBuildingBetterRelations

c) Objective criteria to measure the strength of this belief:

• Historical data examining the frequency and severity of Libyan attacks on American targets before and after the 1986 bombing.
• Analysis of diplomatic communications and actions after an apology was issued.
• The frequency and severity of Libyan attacks on American targets before and after the 1986 bombing.
• The nature of diplomatic communications and actions between the United States and Libya before and after the 1986 bombing.
• The level of public support for the 1986 bombing in the United States and Libya.

d) Shared interests between those who agree/disagree:

• Both sides likely agree on the importance of protecting American lives and interests.
• Both sides presumably seek effective strategies for deterring acts of violence against Americans.

e) Key opposing interests between those who agree/disagree (that must be addressed for mutual understanding):

• Those who agree with the belief may prioritize military strength and deterrence as a form of defense, and view apologies as a sign of weakness.
• Those who disagree might prioritize diplomatic engagement, see value in acknowledging past wrongs, and view apologies as a tool for healing and building better relations.

f) Solutions:

• Continued examination and understanding of international relations strategies, including the use of military force and diplomacy.
• Learning from past actions to inform future policy decisions.

g) Strategies for encouraging commitment to a resolution to evidence-based solutions:

• Promote dialogue and understanding of the complexities in international relations.
• Encourage research and learning from history to inform future policy decisions.
  

The scores given to these experts are hypothetical, serving as initial estimates. In a more refined model, the assignment of these scores would be based on a more comprehensive evaluation of each expert's arguments for or against the specific belief. This process involves capturing, evaluating, and synthesizing the strengths of their arguments in a systematic and transparent manner.

This type of argument analysis, sometimes referred to as collective intelligence or group intelligence, allows for a more nuanced and robust understanding of complex issues. For more detailed information about this process and how these scores would be calculated in practice, you can refer to the methodologies outlined on your GitHub and group intelligence websites.

Please see my sites for more:

1. https://www.groupintel.org/home and this
2. https://github.com/myklob/ideastockexchange

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.