Considering my views, it may seem kind of odd that I read a lot of Tom Clancy, an author whose first book, The Hunt for Red October was heartily endorsed by Reagan, who was the president at the time, and Clancy's views are very right wing. I guess it's the action that draws me to them, as well as the rather odd and creative political scenarios that he can come up with as the background for his books.
President Durling has been rather blindsided by a surprise attack by Japan upon the US navy during what was supposed to be a friendly join military exercise.
Little does either Ryan or Durling know that the attack was planned by a group of billionaire businessmen in their government have taken over, and had their puppet prime minister order the attacks as retaliation over a trade dispute.
Jack Ryan is talking about modern history (the last 200 years or so), and how aggressor nations usually haven't done very well, and lost the war, when they decide to attack a rival nation that is equal to or greater than them in strength, when suddenly, he says this:
War is the ultimate criminal act, it's armed robbery writ large. And it's always about greed. It's a nation that wants something another nation has. And you defeat that nation by recognizing what it wants and denying it to them. The seeds of their defeat are usually found in the seeds of their desire.That's a rather surprising statement for Tom Clancy to write, as right wing as he is, because he normally lets his views bleed through into his stories, and into the views and words of his primary characters. It seems to contradict his normal views and feelings. What do you think?
To see more of what I have been reading, check out my past posts on Khaled Hosseini (best known for the book and resulting movie, The Kite Runner), and the alternate history/science fiction writer Harry Turtledove.