First up was student Rebecca Collins. While she spoke eloquently, Collins’ central argument was most familiar of anti-war on terror tropes. She asked us to “imagine how different the world would look today if the United States had spent the money it used to fund the war on terror to find a political solution through educational programs, through vocational skills training, or through investment.” Yes, if only we built schools for more Afghan girls, then Salafi-Jihadists would stop trying to dominate us. Collins’ contention is an absurdity proven by the fact that groups such as the Taliban and the Islamic State consistently seek to destroy those same social programs she promotes. They do so not to hurt America per se, but to hurt that which we represent and they despise: individual freedom, secular society, and female emancipation. Were we to apply Collins’ strategy, we would find ourselves spending vast sums of money that would either be burned or stolen by our enemies. They would have the opportunity of being able to kill us without first facing a robust military and intelligence counterforce.

The former head of British counterterrorism policing, Sir Mark Rowley, was next. Rowley is a hero. He made the excellent point that the ideological strains which give birth to that which poses the primary terrorist threat to the West, Salafi-Jihadist extremism, were not sparked by Western foreign policy. Instead, they are consequences of a “long curve” of ideology and effort. While it is certainly true that the short-term impact of the Iraq War, for example, fueled terrorist groups (though that hopefully won’t be the long-term outcome), the ultimate threat here is one created by our enemies, not by us. Rowley noted that while British security services have prevented 23 terrorist attacks in the last three years, the role of allied military and intelligence efforts has been crucial in supporting these outcomes.

Rowley was followed by retired British diplomat, Sir Ivor Roberts. Roberts’ arguments were manifestly unimpressive. His argument was basically that the allies should end any kind of robust intelligence or military effort against terrorist groups. He lamented the war in Afghanistan, falsely claiming that it has only dispersed rather than degraded al Qaeda. Roberts also railed against the CIA’s rendition and interrogation program (which saved many lives) and drones (which are crucial in allowing us to stop attacks). Instead, Roberts claimed that the best way to reduce the terrorist threat is to reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. Like most critics of the war on terror, this trope of fixing the Middle East peace process in order to end terrorism is absurd. Beyond the Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas, groups like ISIS and the Lebanese Hezbollah care far more about their own territorial and political interests than they do the Palestinian conflict. Solving that conflict would have only a very marginal impact in reducing the terrorist threats we face.

Next up was former Trump administration official Elaine Duke. Duke made the moral point that U.S. counterterrorism efforts are “not an excuse for terrorism.” She highlighted the difference between civilian casualties of U.S. military operations and those of terrorist groups — that the terrorists seek to kill civilians, whereas U.S. forces seek to avoid them.

Jane Harman, a former Democratic member of Congress and Israeli intelligence agent came next. She regurgitated the standard tropes about George W. Bush being responsible for the world’s ills. It’s a boring and tired excuse that somehow passes for analysis.

Fortunately, Harman was followed by the excellent retired British general, Graeme Lamb. A Scotsman of exceptional humor and intellectual aggression, Lamb explained why “accepting the rule of terror is to give up on humanity.” Instead, we should “always endeavor to fight better,” he said. The retired general took pains to note that the seriousness of the terrorist threat is not defined by casualties inflicted, but rather by the psychological harm the terrorists impose on our democratic societies. This is something far too few recognize. But it is shown by the manner in which societies turn inwards in the aftermath of serious terrorist attacks. Lamb added that we should not be willing to allow groups to kill civilians “for a headline.” Lamb is a leader who knows this fight inside and out: He led special operations units in Iraq and helped generate U.S. counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.

David Pratt was next. He decided to get history completely wrong and praised President Barack Obama for his efforts to “correct many of the abuses of the Bush administration by withdrawing troops from Iraq and reducing the commitment in Afghanistan.” I say Pratt gets this history wrong, because the reality of Obama’s withdrawal of forces from Iraq is that it provided political space for the sectarianism of Iran and security space for the rise of ISIS.

The debate was finished off by Gerald Feierstein who rightly noted that while political solutions to terrorism must drive our long-term focus, we cannot escape the “immediate short-term challenge” terrorists pose in security terms. To ignore that reality is to accept their imposition of death on our civilians and our way of life.

Anyway, this debate is a good example of how, whether or not you think a speaker is wrong or right, they can provoke us to understand an issue more effectively. You can watch the video of the debate below.