FROM AMAZON: The hero of six New York Times bestsellers by Stephen Coonts, author of Flight of the Intruder and Fortunes of War, returns as the United States and Cuba engage in a terrifying game of brinksmanship, a gamble that could break the last military taboo and destroy both countries.

In Cuba, an ailing Fidel Castro lies dying. Across the Straits of Florida, an anxious US awaits the inevitable power struggle, determined to have a say in who controls this strategically invaluable island. And the American President has an added reason for concern: An Arms Control Conference has just begun in Paris and, unbeknownst to either the American public or Cuba, the US has hidden secret weapons inside the American base on Cuba's Guantanamo Bay. But no secret remains one for long, and when one of the Cuban factions finds out about the weapons, the excitement begins.

Only Admiral Grafton, on an aircraft carrier off the coast of Cuba, knows the impending danger. Only Grafton can save America from a disaster that would make the Bay of Pigs look like child's play. In Cuba, Stephen Coonts captures the ominous feel of a tropical powder keg about to explode in a novel filled with the action and drama for which he is famous. ( )

I've really enjoyed some of the books in Stephen Coonts' Jake Grafton series. This is not one of them.

Sometimes you have the benefit of hindsight but I want to believe a younger me would also have seen through all the macho jingoism talk in this book from 2000. Talking about the Iraq war as a proof that only military power can prevent weapons of mass destruction is now cringe-worthy.

The author clearly had not understood how asymmetric warfare works. That it is not about grinding down armies, especially when the enemy welcomes American bombs. Indiscriminate American bombs becomes the best recruitment argument the enemy can get. So instead of realizing that he’s doing the enemy’s job, Coonts proudly lets characters talk about how many (civilians) to kill if any American dies.

Is it possible that the author intentionally inserted these fallacies to provoke the reader? Not very. Remember that this book was written just as America reached for George W. Bush and was about to enter 2 wars where civilians keep dying without America ”winning”. The total death count is around half a million, 1% of those being American military.

I think most will agree that the original plans for the real life wars were unrealistic, and with that hindsight it is easy to say the same about the views in this book.

Even without the political weirdness, the book is not that enjoyable. Grafton has been stuck in some kind of position that strangely both allows him to command a carrier group and fly around for hours on end in an F-14 and personally execute special ops. Either carrier group commanders have nothing to do, or he’s a very incompetent commander. If Coonts can’t change the story from military action, it would have been better if he had not kept promoting Grafton in every book. Or he could have done what Clancy did, insert new action characters.

An example from the book (loosely quoted):
Side character #1: Do you think Jake Grafton is big enough for this?
Side character #2: He’s big enough.

If a book needs to add such parts to prop up the hero, then it is not very good.

Did I mention the constant need to bash politicians (while everything military is God sent)?

( )

Exciting, action packed. Jake and Toad save Cuba from the dreaded communists. I guess that's called "nation building?" The book is stimulating, if implausible. Where's my next Coonts book? ( )