Customer Reviews

The Scorpion's Gate

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(22)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

As Richard Clarke did with a recent long essay in the Atlantic about a new hypothetical terrorist attack in America, Clarke uses his first novel to explore possible events that might happen in the world, and what it would mean for the U.S., and other countries.

Clarke's focus is on the fall of the Saud family in Saudi Arabia and the struggle among the factions there to start a new stable government. Some want a democracy (but not a US imposed democracy), others want a theocracy based on the Koran.

The Saud family's close ties to Washington come into play, as does China's growing desire for oil and their burgeoning navy (see another recent cover article of the Atlantic a few months ago for a frightening view of a possible war with China), and the continued stresses between factions of the US Government; Defense, CIA, State, etc.

For those who hate Clarke because he didn't follow the party line after September 11, you might be surprised that he does not dwell on that event and the lack of proper response in its aftermath. It is a rather apolitical book, though not surprising because career intelligence and government workers have to stay apolitical to continue to work with whatever administration is in power. It could easily be imagined that either Republicans or Democrats are in power in Clarke's book - he makes no mention of parties.

For Clarke it's the war that is the Iraq has been the crucial event in the Middle East, not really for the better, and his scenario for that country is basically that we left there in 2006; not exactly with all of our "goals" accomplished. It is a book I think either Republicans or Democrats would enjoy and gain insight from the book. And Clarke's obvious familiarity with internal power struggles and with real-life spying and intelligence gathering is well preseneted.

The story can be a little muddled, and Clarke writes without a huge amount of detail, so the book goes by fast. But it's fairly clear by the end who had what to gain, and how they went about trying to do it.

It's an interesting scenario that might be a little overly rosy at the end; though there's no guarantee of "happily ever after," but there is a lot of hope there for stability and - gasp - a long term view of the future of oil, and what the end of that oil means. And that is something that in the US at least, remains pure fantasy.

It saddens me knowing that the amount of money spent on the current war could have funded a new "Manhattan Project" with the goal of viable alternative sources of energy. It would have sparked all sorts of economic investment, ended our dependence on Middle East dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, and kept thousands of Americans and Iraqis from being blown to bits.

Richard Clarke's second book is a study in strengths and weaknesses, more the former than the latter. As Clarke's first foray into fiction, the book merits four stars. Within it's pages are the promise of a future five star novel, and I hope we see a faithfully rendered movie version of this work, as it seems like it could translate very well to the screen.

As an expert on his subject matter, Clarke is (not surprisingly) very strong. The book is chock full of tidbits which could only come from an highly placed Washington insider, including some revealing "fictions" about actual events which are currently misunderstood. The novel takes the reader to places most will never see, such as the White House Situation Room and alleys in Tehran, and describes the sort of backchannels and meetings which are not publically discussed by media or elected officials, but which certainly do exist.

Clarke's knowledge of the story's elements is unsurpassed, for example the hierarchy and dynamics between various Middle Eastern factions, and the capabilities of their intelligence operations and foreign policy goals. The book's scenario of the exile of the house of Saud, replaced on the Arabian peninsula by an nascent Islamic government trying to find it's way is far from improbable. The rise of Chinese economic and military power, it's increasing modernization and industrialization leading to higher demand for imported oil is a near certainty. So is the growing influence of Iran in the Middle East, their government's effective deviousness in foreign espionage (leaving their fingerprints off of their offenses while others take the blame), and the possibility of Tehran developing nuclear weapons.

While the elements of intrigue in the story are excellent, some of Clarke's technical strengths become literary weaknesses at times. Play by play descriptions of naval and aerial battles can read like Jane's Information summaries, instead of snapping to life as the spine-tingling war stories they can and should be. Occassionally, the battle scenes can become muddled in describing who is doing what. Clarke's probable intent was to convey the fog and deception of warfare, but this instead falls short of it's potential, and some of the battles come off slightly confusing to the reader.

The main characters are solid. Though the main protagonists could have used more development, the reader does ultimately care about their fates. The motivations of each of the main actors is straightforward enough, and probably doesn't stray far from real life in terms of the motivations of career intelligence officers, foreign assets, and officials from the various governments. In portraying US officials, Clarke walks a fine line (and on at least one occasion, a not-so-fine line!) between purely fictional characters and cutouts of real people, which is not unexpected -- the cover byline reads: "Sometimes you can tell more truth through fiction." The well-informed reader will read between the lines to discover what knowledge Clarke is trying to convey about real events and people. You may even recognize some of the characters, though their names and loyalties are changed (not to protect the guilty -- more likely to protect the author from facing charges on national security violations, or worse!)

On balance, the story is excellent, well conceived, fairly well executed and highly plausible. It's an entertaining and eye opening read which will leave the earnest reader wanting Clarke's next effort.

In 2010, Supported by the Chinese, a coup has taken out the despotic leaders of Saudi Arabia replacing it with the Republic of Islamyah. The zealots in charge begin to bring their anti-western fundamentalist Islamic fervor to nearby Bahrain by blowing up favorite haunts where the hated infidels reside. The area is quickly falling into chaos with the Chinese pushing for more discontent to further extricate the west out of the region.

Secretary of Defense Henry Conrad pushes a military solution to the Middle East crisis as he wants to invade Islamyah so that the United States can regain control of the oil. Others want to take over the entire region by force while some believe we must use diplomacy to mute the growing influence of the Chinese. Though the middle of winter in DC, the heat is on in the capital and not just because the weather is spring-like as both sides escalate the hostilities with nuclear war between the United States and China imminent unless cooler heads prevail.

THE SCORPION'S GATE is a fabulous thriller in which anti-terrorist expert Richard A. Clarke extrapolates what the future might hold based on what if consequences of decisions made by the current administration. The story line is frightening as the scenario seems plausible as Mr. Bush's legacy to the world (it will solve the long term solvency of the social security issue). Though Mr. Clarke makes the error of many first time novelists of trying to get everything into the plot, futurologists will appreciate this strong look at what might be forthcoming (who in the 1970s predicted we would still be fighting the war against drugs today?).

Harriet Klausner

"The Scorpion's Gate" is a fast-paced geopolitical thriller set in the near future. PLOT SUMMARY: The Saudi Royal Family has fallen, replaced by the new Republic of Islamyah. Meanwhile, China, the U.S. and Iran are plotting to seize control of the oil resources in eastern Arabia. Can a new World War be averted? Will honesty and patriotism prevail, or will greedy politicians lead us into another pointless conflict?

While the preface to this novel says that this is entirely "a work of fiction," any astute observer will see that it's a thinly-veiled attack on the policies of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, with a few sharp jabs at Bush and Cheney. Clarke is using the vehicle of fiction to expose what he believes is a U.S. foreign policy dominated by unsophisticated warmongers who don't understand the true consequences of their decisions. What they do understand, he posits, is how to manipulate the media and public opinion.

Clarke's writing is tepid, and Clarke's character development is shallow at best. What makes this short novel special is his insider knowledge of how the military and intelligence agencies actually work. I particularly enjoyed his insights on new forms of submarine warfare, electronic weapons jamming and spycraft.

Whether or not you support the current Iraq War, I think you'll enjoy this little potboiler. In fact, it may actually prompt you to ask some unpleasant questions about our future:

1. What will happen to us if the Saudi Royal Family is deposed?
2. Do we have a plan to stand up to China in the competition for dwindling global oil resources?
3. Who is really calling the shots in our military today?
4. What can we believe in the media, and what is just sophisticated mainpulation by powerful people?
5. Is there a different way to relate to Islamic governments?

Sometimes the questions are more valuable than the answers.

Richard Clarke is an important figure in the debate about Iraq and US -- sorry, GWB's -- foreign policy. He seems to be a very decent and brave figure. That makes his thriller of more than casual interest, in that it is so clearly a roman a clef, with the Bad Guy highly Cheneyesque.

Is it a good book? Not really, but it's still worth reading for its evocation of dangerously likely scenarios about the future of Saudi and Iran. The problem is that it is too workmanlike in its style and lacks verbal flair. It plods. It remind me of Tom Clancey, though without Clancey's megaword verbiage. The characters don't quite come to life and blur -- they have no individual voice. As so often in such thrillers, the ending is somewhat mechanistically orchestrated.

Maybe our times are seeing a reversal of T.S. Eliot's claim that this is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper. He lays out a worrisome and failry plausible it'll all go up in a bang possibility.

I'm glad that I read it, though. It is disturbing and convincing and suitably alarming without being melodramatic.

This is a work of fiction, I wonder how people rated this book. I think based based upon their political leanings is how they rated the book. I found the book at best slightly interesting. The characters were weak and were not really developed, you could not relate to anyone. The book tried to play itself like an episode of the TV show "24" but lacking the real action. The book was almost lost as a spy novel or not a terrorist book. Look Clarke worked for both Republican and Democratic presidents, he knows alot and I'm sure the general public has no idea what goes on. So much is tried to be jammed into the last 20 pages, it's like doing cliff notes for WWII history. You can't believe how much he tries to jam into the last 20 pages. It's an OK read. Again depending on your political leanings is how you will like this book. None of my political leanings came into play here.

I confess that I starte to read this and put it aside for a long while. The problem was that I had gone through a long string of excellent fiction and first class non-fiction and this was a [...] child.

What keeps this book from setting a proper pace is that Clarke has to stop to make his points about National Security. And whether you agree with him or not, his views are importantt. People who refuse to engage with people like him because he "turned against" Bush are the ones endangering national security.

Clarke uses the fiction device to argue a number of points and presidents (not the plural) don't come off unscathed. Rumsfeld said, inappropriately but accurately, that you don't fight a war with the army you want, but the one you have. Had he understood his own axiom, the Iraq disaster would not have been a disaster.

In the same way, Clarke makes the point that the White House, new or old president, must deal with the world we have, not the one we'd like to have. After the fact blaming Clinton doesn't fly. Bush and his crew were not children. What they needed to do was make a good, fairly quick assessment of the world as it actually was, not as the right wing ideologues claimed it was. Their obsessive focus blinded them. And no one can blame anyone but this Bush administration for its complete and utter incompetence. The country and our troopss deserved better. Katrina and the rest is just more evidence that Bush puts more faith in spin than anything.

Clarke is as this book indicates to some degree one of the "wise men" that Americans inherit from previous years. I despise Henry Kissinger but he still must be hear. And Brent Scowcraft, another smart, very tough conservative is deservedly respected for his service to his country and the George H.W. Bush. These people do not tailor their views to fit the polls or with the next election in their starry eyes. What they seek to do is what's best for the United States.

If you haven't read it, it's worth the time. Just don't expect great fiction.

Having studied Middle eastern history it was very obvious to me that Richard Clarke knows precisely what he's talking about when it comes to the mechanisms of power that rule both the west and the Middle East today. His vision of world politics only a few years into the future is plausible and chilling and doesn't seem very far fetched at all. I was sort of fearing that the Arabs would be the bad ones at the end and was pleasantly surprised that story was a little more subtle than that.

Even though I thoroughly enjoyed the the thought provoking theories in this book, unfortunately I was equally annoyed by the poor writing and plotline. The characters are weak, the action scenes seem copied from some B-movie and fortunately there is only a hint at the mandatory sex scene.

Five stars for the ideas, one for the writing.

Fast-forward ten years....what will the Middle East look like? Richard Clarke presents here a possible (likely?) scenario, albeit in fictional form. Upfront I'll admit that this reviewer considers Clarke a true American patriot and, yes, indeed, perhaps also a hero. (History will be the ultimate judge, of course.) But, even if you disagree, you must admit that Richard Clarke certainly has the street cred to write such a book, which, by the way, not only presents plausible scenarios, but also rewards the reader with an engrossing story. The story line is nimbly paced, yet sure in its footing, and it engaged this reader from page one continually until the end. Treat yourself to a gripping read, and maybe get a view of the future, as well.

As some reviewers of Scorpion's Gate have said, the story is too obvious - the characters are not deep, and many of the characters fill in roles that are clear from the first chapter of the book. Good guy. Bad guy.
Nevertheless, I was surprised to find myself turning the pages and enjoying the book. Some of the conversations between the characters seemed quite plausible, and at times riveting and - actually, funny.

The foundations of the plot seem to fall into place too easily - even for a novel. Hopefully Clarke's next novel will tackle another real world scenario, but not be as predictible as Scorpion's Gate.