His research on technology and copyright law has been published in National Review , Human Events and many other outlets. Khanna previously served as a professional staff member for the Republican Study Committee, where he focused on defense, technology, and national security issues. Khanna holds a B. In , Captain MacLean deployed to Afghanistan, where he served as a rifle platoon commander in Helmand Province. He has also published on a variety of topics in publications such as the Washington Post , the Weekly Standard , and The American.
Captain MacLean holds an M. John's College.
About ARCI | arci
He holds an M. Bridget Nuxoll is an official advisor to the United States government and civilian organizations. Nuxoll holds an M. Katie Wheelbarger provides counsel on matters of national security and defense intelligence. Prior to her time in government, Ms. Friend Reviews.
To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Winning the Unwinnable War , please sign up. This book sounds a little bloodthirsty, is it?
Yaron Brook Show
As a disabled vet from our recent travails there, the synapsis gives me chills? See 1 question about Winning the Unwinnable War…. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia.
Community Reviews. Showing Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Apr 25, Shekar Subramanian rated it it was amazing. The first chapter of this book got me hooked to the topic. The authors have done an excellent job in terms of bringing our attention to how Islamic Terrorism has time and again showed its colours. The book becomes little boring and diffic The first chapter of this book got me hooked to the topic.
Also the book has been written as if America never had any personal interests from these wars and it was just its altruistic intentions to carry out those wars, which I believe is far from true. But apart from these biases, it is an extremely well written book. I would give it a 4. I read this book during the Pulwama attacks and the tensions in the Kashmir Valley and I could completely relate it with how India too has continually been a victim to this Islamic Totalitarian ideology.
Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism
Excellent Book. Winning the Unwinnable War is a collection of essays integrated in book form by its unifying subject: the war on Islamic theocratic terrorism, specifically how our ideas are driving our defeat, and how we can change course. As someone with experience in Iraq, I can attest to the accuracy of the situation being described; and I agree with the prescriptions for victory given.
Jun 09, Jeffrey Falk rated it liked it. This is a generally well-written if not entirely well-edited , trenchant book that flies in the face of conventional "wisdom" and consequently will likely have no influence. It is entirely too optimistic, and its otherwise rational contributors also concomitantly overstate and overestimate the extent to which the United States is still the same nation and culture it used to be.
Dec 23, Dwayne Roberts rated it it was amazing Shelves: five-star. This is an outstanding look at the threat of Islamism and the proper U. I highly recommend it.
Elan Journo: I would say the turning-point for me was Before , I was interested in all kinds of issues ranging from business ethics to cultural-political trends, but really focused my curiosity to understanding how that event came about. And what took me from to writing a book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was that I realized that the two were ideologically related. There are fundamental commonalities between the two in the sense that the Islamist movement, which seeks to impose Islam as a totalitarian political system everywhere, is embodied in groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, and what those groups advocate has effectively become the dominant ideology motivating the Palestinian Movement.
The Palestinian movement is a political endeavor, distinct from the Palestinian people, which has had different phases throughout its existence. It began as a conflict between Arab states neighboring the newly formed state of Israel. This is embodied primarily through the Hamas faction which came to prominence in the past twenty years and came to power in parts of the Palestinian territory about ten years ago.
So, for me, it was a progression of trying to understand the Islamist movement generally in response to , its origins and motives, and then tracing that ripple effect throughout the region which reconfigured the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Two questions come to mind when I read that title; first, what is justice; and, second, why is justice important when evaluating this issue?
EJ: It is easier to start with the second question. I think most serious people who are invested, interested, or connected to this debate tend to frame this issue in moral terms and specifically in terms of justice. We hear that justice means siding with Palestine. If you turn to the other side of the conflict, people who side with Israel will argue around that issue and try to make a case that Israel has some other moral grounding on its side.
So, the whole debate outside of the conflict-zone is framed in terms of justice. This provides an excellent opportunity to ask what is at stake in this conflict and to ask what justice actually means. The primary principle to apply in this case is, I think, justice. I think just about every normative principle is controversial when you dig into it. I think the same is true for the principle of justice. In everyday usage we mean doing right by people or giving them what they deserve.
What I argue in my book is that people have a right to be concerned about who has justice on their side in this conflict. Specifically, too many people think that if you happen to be the weaker side materially, if you are the more suffering side, if your side can show greater anguish, poverty, and weakness then, in some sense, justice has to be on your side. What I suggest is that this is not really a helpful conception of justice because you can find underdogs that are not good and are, actually, really bad. So the amount of suffering, weakness, or material impoverishment you can show cannot be measures of whether one side is in the right or not because there is no correlation in reality between those [characteristics] and being in the right.
I argue that justice here means evaluating both adversaries by the same standards and applying objective moral principles to both sides. Then we must evaluate who lives up to those standards. The principles I suggest are, I think, things most people can agree on. These principles are: 1 a society that enables people to live and thrive; and 2 a society that enables each of us to live and make our own decisions and pursue our own goals which enables people to succeed and achieve their own conception of a good life.
When you extrapolate these requirements to a society, it means a society that is growing, developing, and becoming healthier and stronger. I think of these as objective moral principles, meaning that they are true for all people, at all times, and in all places. Justice means applying this standard to both sides and asking which of the adversaries is creating, has created, or would create a society where people are able to live free, individuals can make their own decisions, and would have the most opportunity to succeed when doing so.
Justice, from the perspective of outsiders, means we should stand with whoever is on the side of freedom because freedom is the principle that unites these characteristics of a good society. We should root for a society that is fostering freedom and supporting it as best we can identify. I would also put it this way: there are different conceptions of justice, some religious, some secular, but a common thread is the orientation toward something other than the individual or other than freedom.
My argument is that a proper conception of justice and its application here requires looking at what kind of society is best for the individual and this standard must be applied to both adversaries. This combination of having an objective standard and applying it uniformly to both sides is the project of my book.
PT: What other salient differences are there between your approach to this conflict and others who have approached this issue? One view you hear, primarily from evangelical Christians, is that God said that the realization of the Jews on their own homeland and the creation of Israel is right, there are multiple references to this in the Bible, and you better stand on the side God told you to.
Now, you have to believe in the underlying religious perspective to find that view plausible. Even if you put that aside, there are real questions about this conception of justice. If God is the arbiter of justice, what do we do if there are hard cases? Could it be that both sides have some legitimate claims and some illegitimate claims? How do we sort that out? What if the side God told you to be on has done bad things, how are you supposed evaluate that? Is it defeating, inconsequential, or somewhere in the middle? For example, the Iranian regime—which is a totalitarian Islamic regime—has held elections and continues to hold regular elections.
Does that mean Iran is in the same category as Israel? I argue that the difference is a wider secular principle of individual freedom. Now, if we look at the pro-Palestinian perspective, and again there are different positions here, but if we take the salient one, one issue that comes up is that the pro-Palestinians are in favor of justice for Palestinians—and so am I!
- On the Israeli Palestinian Conflict: A Conversation with Elan Journo;
- French Sound Structure.
- On the Israeli Palestinian Conflict: A Conversation with Elan Journo.
- Scanning Probe Microscopies Beyond Imaging: Manipulation of Molecules and Nanostructures;
- Why Trump should disrupt the scandalous US-Saudi relationship | TheHill!
- MPS SPEAKER.
- Yaron Brook Show Podcast | Free Listening on Podbean App!
But where we differ is that I make a sharp distinction between individuals who identify as Palestinians and the Palestinian Movement. The two overlap but are distinguishable. The Palestinian Movement is defined by a set of ideas and political goals and you have to evaluate that separately from individual Palestinians. What often happens is that many people who take the pro-Palestinian side blend the two together. They have sympathy for Palestinians who suffered actual or claimed wrongs—which need to be identified and, where actual wrongs exist, addressed.
But, this gets blended with the goals and motives of the Palestinian movement. One problem with the Palestinian Movement—I argue, and think the evidence shows— is it has not lived up to its claim of trying to right past wrongs. But what you see is that you cannot be for justice to individual Palestinians and support the goals of the Palestinian Movement because the Palestinian Movement has led to dictatorial and authoritarian governance or political regimes. We just want a practical solution. You cannot abandon moral principles and hope to find practical solutions.
The whole argument of the book is that only by taking justice seriously can you reach practical solutions that solve the key issues in the conflict. Overall, the key differences between my book and other views is that my book is pro-justice, pro-individual, secular, and takes morality seriously.