The Eleventh Day: The Ultimate Account of 9/11

 

Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan

It is a commonplace problem, put bluntly, that hindsight is always clearer than foresight. This tends to lead to books and articles that claim that something was predicable and the people on the spot were stupid (or deliberately made mistakes) prior to the disaster. As attitudes go, it is far from helpful. The person on the spot will not view a future event as inevitable – and lacks the benefit of hindsight.

It is nearly a decade since 9/11, the day when the world changed once again, tossing our Western Civilisation into uncharted waters. 9/11 brought into plain view the ‘new world disorder,’ the Western existential crisis, the fallacies of Cold War-era thinking and the growing threat of Islamic terrorism. Nothing will ever been quite the same; to paraphrase someone I’ve forgotten, things aren’t what they used to be – but then they never were.

The Eleventh Day starts by recounting everything that took place on 9/11, starting with the terrorists boarding the planes and running through the confusion and shock that prevailed as air traffic controllers, the government and even the military struggled to cope with the chaos. The book pulls no punches in detailing how badly those in charge coped, making mistakes and errors that almost certainly cost lives. It then moves on to the desperate struggle to save people from the Twin Towers.

It rapidly dismisses most of the conspiracy theories centred around 9/11. The idea that ‘Bush did it,’ or ‘Bush let it happen’ has been prevalent, as have theories wondering if the Twin Towers were actually hit by missiles or some other form of covert operation, perhaps including explosives previously placed in the towers by military or intelligence-service engineers. The theories mostly don’t stand up to scrutiny, although it is possible to wonder if the CIA didn’t tell the FBI about the terrorists because the CIA intended to recruit them and may not have realised that they were on a strike mission. As always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and little has been presented.

The book then moves on to discus the intelligence failures that allowed the terrorists to get into position and strike without being intercepted. There were very definitely heart-breaking moments when the plot could have been stopped, but most of them became clear only with the benefit of hindsight. Certainly, no one could have reasonably connected the death of a prominent anti-Taliban fighter with a terrorist plot in New York. Part of the problem is that intelligence agencies soak in a great deal of crap – lies, nonsense and miscommunications – every day. Valid leads can sometimes be lost in the white noise.

A further problem lay in the political-legal framework established since the end of the Cold War. Congress loaded restrictions on the CIA that barred it, for example, from recruiting known terrorists (precisely how much notice the CIA paid to this instruction is a matter of conjecture). Furthermore, the FBI agents were concerned about following up tips about Middle Eastern men studying aircraft piloting for fear of being accused of racial profiling. The fact remains that the vast majority of suspects who might have been recruited by AQ are generally – publicly, at least – practicing Muslims. It is a fact that it is politically unacceptable to admit.

This was quite bad enough, but it got worse. AQ is/was a more trans-national organisation than most NGOs and corporations. It quite simply didn’t fit in with the terrorist groups of the Cold War; the IRA, for example, was focused on Ireland. The British didn’t have to invade Ireland to win the war; they already controlled Northern Ireland. It was possible to limit AQ’s dependence on other states, but it was never controlled by a single state or even based in a single state. And the one state that could be regarded as a base – Afghanistan – was so poorly governed that even if the Taliban had wanted to hand OBL over, they might not have been able to do it.

Pre-9/11, our networks and precedents were not set up to cope with anything like AQ. It was extremely difficult to track, let alone destroy. And even if we did, there was zero legal precedent to deal with them – unless we counted them as spies, who could be legally shot.

Finally, the book raises a disquieting question that has been largely buried since the attacks. Was a foreign government involved in 9/11? The book focuses on Saudi Arabia in particular, noting that the Saudis never cooperated with the US on tracking terrorism and were unprepared to stop their citizens donating money to terrorists until the terrorists came home in 2004. Given the strange nature of the Saudi Government, it is quite possible that the Saudis did fund AQ, if only to keep their own heads on their shoulders. And there was a great deal of jubilation in Saudi Arabia over 9/11.

Bush is roundly condemned for not focusing on this. The authors do not ask if he could actually have done anything. Saudi Arabia is the largest oil producer in the world. An American invasion of Saudi Arabia would cause a massive global oil shock. In that light, Bush’s decision to invade Iraq makes a great deal of sense; if Iraqi oil came online in great quantities, Saudi Arabia would be far less influential. The US would then be able to deal with it at leisure. Of course, accepting this means accepting that Bush wasn’t actually an idiot.

Overall, The Eleventh Day adds a great deal to our knowledge of 9/11, as well as usefully compiling already-known knowledge and dismissing numerous absurd theories. I doubt, however, if it is truly the final account of 9/11. Much remains to be discovered that may shed new light on the most tragic day of modern history.

Alien Invasion: How to Defend Earth - Travis S. Taylor and Bob Boan

 

One thing that has always struck me about much of the scientific community (particularly the SETI community) is that they place a surprising amount of faith in alien benevolence. The concept, expounded by the late Carl Sagan among others, assumes that any alien race advanced enough to cross the gulf of space between their homeworld and Earth will have developed socially to the point where they will not pose a threat to the puny inhabitants of Earth. Like most assumptions, it is not based on any actual fact. There is no reason to assume either alien benevolence or hostility.

Even if ET doesn’t intend us direct harm, contact with him may have harmful effects on our own society. What if ET starts shipping in advanced technology so far beyond what we can produce that we literally cannot understand or duplicate it? We would – like the American Indians – become dependent upon outsiders to supply us with what we needed. What if ET ‘proved’ that God doesn’t exist, or that communism could actually work if we tried? Or, just like a charitable NGO, unaccountable to the people it aims to help, ET tried meddling in our society for our own good? You don’t need bad intentions to do a great deal of harm.

This book is written from a more pessimistic point of view. If aliens exist, they may be dangerous; they may be unrelentingly hostile, bent on conquest, or maybe they would just regard us as competition – not evil, in any human sense, but still extremely dangerous. It is a point of view anthemia to SETI.

I should note one point before we begin the formal review. This book is actually an updated version of An Introduction to Planetary Defence, written by the same authors in 2006. Although the book was very interesting, it suffered from a number of production (as opposed to content) flaws; it was expensive, didn’t offer value for money (I’d expect a hardback at the very least) and had a number of spelling and grammar mistakes. The electronic version was PDF-only, fitted with a password and DRM, awkward to use. This version, updated, is cheaper, with a blessed DRM-free electronic version.

This is one of many curious oversights. I disagree quite strongly with the idea of benevolent aliens coming to help us, yet Carl Sagan has been much more successful at promoting his ideas. The rather tedious Contact was mass-produced as a cheap paperback novel, with the result that people were less inclined to write dire reviews of it once they’d read it.

One of the problems with considering alien invasion in general (apart from the snigger-factor) is that all of our knowledge of aliens is purely theoretical. On the other hand, we can say some pretty definite things about aliens we might actually happen to encounter in the next 50 years. Barring a revolutionary development in drive technology (as suggested in Travis Taylor’s Warp Speed) the aliens will encounter us, not the other way around. They will logically be able to cross interstellar space and secure control over the high orbitals (Earth orbit). Even a race with an equal level of technology to our own – but driven by a determination to get into space – will be able to take the high orbitals.

The first chapter of the book discusses the probabilities of aliens existing and alien encounters, covering such fixed ideas as the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox. The authors provide a valuable discussion of both concepts, although they spend a considerable amount of time dismantling the latter. In my opinion, both are largely worthless – if only because we have no data. It would have been far simpler to note that there are hundreds of stars like Sol (the sun) within the Milky Way Galaxy – and the only one we have studied closely did produce an intelligent race, humanity. Simple extrapolation tells us that there could be many alien races near us.

Of course, we have very limited technical data on what is and isn’t possible. Based on human experience, societies can rise and stagnate (like Imperial China), before being replaced by another society. If Europe had been dominated by a single power when Columbus proposed his voyage of exploration to the Indies (and ran into America) it is quite possible that he would never have been permitted to sail. The breakthrough that became the industrial revolution might never have happened. Generally speaking, a hypothetical alien race would have to develop intelligence, develop technology, survive its technology (i.e. without nuclear war, blowing itself back into the Stone Age), reach into space and start crossing the interstellar gulf before it encountered us. That’s quite a few bottlenecks they’d have to surmount. What that does tend to imply is if they succeeded, they might be a powerful and aggressive race – just like the Europeans who arrived in the Americas.

One point the authors do make that puzzles the hell out of me is an assertion that the laws of physics may be different in other parts of the universe. (Chapter 1.6). If I understand it correctly, the laws will be identical everywhere (unless we postulate an encounter with an entirely different dimension with different physical laws). ET may well be more advanced than us, but his technology should be understandable, at least once we work out how it works. I don’t think that alien technology would be incompatible with our atmosphere.

It does raise the issue of what there might be to fight over if the aliens were genuinely alien. What if the aliens live in gas giants? Earth would be useless to them, except perhaps as a source of raw materials – and they could get those much more efficiently by mining the asteroids. We and the Jupiter-aliens would be ships that pass in the night. We might not even be able to communicate.

The chapter goes on to note that humans aren’t particularly good at preparing for a new threat. This is unfortunately true, although it reads oddly when compared to later statements regarding secrecy and classification. We need a threat to be present before we react to it. NATO is a good example of this; it was formed to withstand Russian threats to Europe. When we don’t see a threat coming, the results – as on 9/11 – can be disastrous. We are currently broadcasting our existence to the rest of the universe. Is that really such a good idea?

Even so, I seriously doubt that we could have a global ban on radio transmissions. It would be politically unacceptable.

Chapter Two discusses the human approach to war and how it might be shaped to face an alien invasion. A great deal of the material here is interesting, although it suffers from MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over). This isn’t a section for someone who isn’t prepared to think hard about the material. In some ways, reading a good alien invasion novel – Footfall, for example – would provide a more usable primer in the use of space in dominating the Earth. The authors are entirely correct to suggest that we should have a plan for meeting the aliens. However, such a plan would have to be very generalised. We won’t know what’s coming until we meet it.

A problem that does appear is that the book discusses next-generation technologies like armoured combat suits (mecha) and orbital weapons. They do not exist at the moment, at least not in a workable form. What do we do if the aliens arrive tomorrow? Rumsfield’s doctrine – you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want – applies here, far more than anywhere else.

Chapter Three discusses alien motives – why would they want to invade Earth? Many of the reasons are drawn using pop culture examples, which is actually a very good idea. It helps put faces on abstract possibilities. Mind you, what if we did run into ‘Q’ (Star Trek)? Star Trek fans have endlessly debated Q’s actions in ‘Q Who.’ If Q hadn’t thrown the Enterprise into the path of the Borg, the Federation would have been unprepared for their arrival. Q handed out a painful lesson that was, ultimately, for humanity’s own good. What might Q-like aliens decree for us in the future?

This chapter can be fascinating, although in some respects it is let down by the examples cited. The Transformers universe can be great fun, but it isn’t particularly realistic.

Chapter Four is difficult to review, if only because I disagree quite heavily with the authors. The authors assert that there is no ‘need to know’ about an alien threat and cite Heinlein’s dictum that a ‘secret weapon must remain secret.’ The problem is that both examples – they include one from Independence Day as well – cut in different directions.

In The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress the rebels have a secret weapon – the super-intelligent computer that runs the lunar colony is on their side. The Professor (one of the leaders) states that Mycroft Holmes (the computer) must remain a secret, an advantage that the main baddie, the Warden, doesn’t know about. He is, from his point of view, quite right. Losing that advantage will make the rebellion a great deal harder.

The problem is that we, in the event of an alien encounter, will be playing the Warden.

Think about it. The Warden’s job is to suppress dissent and keep the colony working for Earth. He has an absolute ‘need to know’ about Mycroft Holmes; from his point of view, it’s a weapon in the hands of the enemy. Removing the computer will make his job easier; he has to find out about Mycroft.

The main advantage the aliens have, right now, is that no one knows they are coming. If they lose a UFO somewhere over CONUS, that secret is blown – we will know that there is a new threat, one that we need to prepare for, now. Except – if the authors of this book have their way, the secret will remain secret. There will be no warning.

Let’s assume that the aliens are hostile and intelligent. They know they’ve lost a craft. They may know where it is – they are unlikely to assume that it was destroyed beyond recognition. Their secret is out – how will they react? As I see it, they can bring the invasion plan forward and hit us before we can mobilise, they can back off and retreat into interstellar space, they can attempt to communicate with us – or they can continue with their original plan. But which one will they choose? And what was their original plan, anyway? We don’t know.

If we keep the UFO crash a secret, we are effectively preserving the alien secret and making it impossible for the rest of humanity to get ready before the aliens arrive. An American would call that treason, the rest of the world would call it a crime against humanity – and they’d be right. We are not talking about hiding a US-built secret weapon; we are talking about hiding the existence of an unknown enemy.

Let’s consider the argument from a different point of view. The latest Russian mobile radar/SAM launcher is supposed to be able to track stealth aircraft. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that it can provide perfect tracking of an F-22/F-117. And the Russians supply a few dozen of them to Iran. More through luck than skill, the CIA discovers this – and says nothing. When war starts with Iran in 2014 (or whenever) the early stage of the air campaign is an absolute disaster. Forty US stealth aircraft are shot out of the sky. What – exactly – do you think that the President, Congress, the Senate and the American public would say about the CIA when the truth came out? They’d be branding the CIA as traitors. They kept the enemy’s secret weapon a secret!

Independence Day actually illustrates this point quite nicely. The UFO crashed in 1947. If we assume that the invasion took place in 2000, the US had a priceless advantage and squandered it. The bare fact that there was an alien race out there would galvanise the space race and start generating weapons that could be used when the aliens finally show up. FIFTY YEARS of lead time was WASTED. If the example used in this book is accurate – the aliens, travelling near the speed of light, would only experience a few months while we experienced fifty years – they wouldn't even have a chance to realise that something had gone wrong!

There is a vast difference between a secret weapon and a secret enemy. Can you imagine the US undertaking the build-up it did for the Cold War if the USSR didn’t exist? Or if the US Government constantly assured the population that the USSR didn’t exist, or was of no defence significance? Now, if the US did build a secret weapon to use against the aliens, that does need to be kept a secret (unless it might deter the aliens from attacking) – but keeping the aliens a secret is doing their work for them.

I disagree with the authors, almost completely. If there is an alien threat, the entire world has an absolute ‘need-to-know.’ Why? Because we would not be caught unawares when the aliens arrived. Military reserves would be called up, aircraft would be distributed around the various countries, civil defence precautions could be implemented, diplomatic teams would be prepared for contact, military alliances could be activated…hell, we’d look a great deal more intimidating to any alien threat if we were clearly ready for them.

There’s also the political issue. The aliens may well be playing from a sophisticated political and military playbook; we can hardly hope to run into rampaging berserkers. If it turned out that the US had warning of the aliens and didn’t provide any warning, NATO would shatter and the aliens would have ample opportunity to turn the world against the US. Alliances can stand a great many things, but they cannot stand outright betrayal – and that would be exactly what had happened.

The authors appear to believe that it is an all-or-nothing situation; full disclosure or complete secrecy. That isn’t necessary. There are certain details that no one outside government has a ‘need-to-know’. The location of the crashed ship should be classified, the exact level of success in understanding and duplicating alien technology should be classified, military plans to resist the invaders should be classified…

Chapter five discusses how we have handled alien contact in the past – or what passes for alien contact. The early parts of the chapter focus on the UFO craze, before blurring into generalised thoughts about alien encounters. I doubt that we could choose who shows up to say hello to planet Earth. Much of the advice is very good, although limited. A study of the Spanish invasion of Mexico and the lessons it offers for our preparations would not have gone amiss. What it doesn’t offer is a specialised plan; ET is coming, what do we do?

The final chapter discusses ways to prepare for alien encounter. The authors suggest that a ‘Sixth Column’ – a classified study and preparation program – be created to meet the possible threat. They point out, correctly, that lack of a prior plan can lead to disaster. However, many of the objections they raise to disclosure are somewhat disingenuous. For example, they assert that any sharing of technology would grant it to rogue nations. I doubt that that is possible, at least not within a meaningful timeframe. Having a complete set of plans for the F-22 would not allow North Korea to build its own. It took them decades to produce nukes.

Obviously, some manner of global cooperation is required. NATO has served well when it came to meeting threats that all its members agreed were threats. An alliance against an alien threat might reasonably include the G22 states, providing enough economic, political and military power to deter rogue nations from acting up. Why, you might ask, would the Chinese or Russians cooperate? Answer; they’re just as threatened by ET as everyone else.

One of the main problems with the Sixth Column’s position is funding. Developing advanced weapons in total secrecy is likely to cost a LOT of money. It’s hard enough to convince governments in these days of economic belt-tightening to pay for equipment to meet threats that are clearly seen; why would anyone expect the government to pour billons of dollars into a black project without it turning into a political football? And what if there is no clear proof of an alien threat? That is one good reason for disclosure – to frighten governments enough to get them to unlock the purse strings and push money into the military.

There are ways to make some preparations on a limited budget. Have biohazard teams (prepared for immediate deployment to a biological attack) trained to deal with a UFO crash. Have diplomatic teams study alien contact as a theoretical exercise. Have the laws and regulations governing commercial space travel abolished, allowing the covert development of a space force that might pass unnoticed. There are many others, which need careful thought.

I enjoyed reading this textbook, honestly. However, there are some curious oversights.

There is no serious literature review. OK, there hasn’t been an alien invasion and there are no serious studies of past invasions. However, there are a considerable number of novels published concerning alien invasion – and the authors barely touch upon this subject. They prefer to concentrate on movies and television shows. This isn’t a bad idea, in some respects, but it is very limited.

In my opinion (I have been reading SF since I was 7) there are three alien invasion novels that must be read by anyone seriously interested in the possibilities. The War of the Worlds (HG Wells), Footfall (Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle) and Operation Thunder Child (Nick Pope). The War of the Worlds was the first novel concerning alien invasion. Footfall was hard science-fiction, without any ‘magic’ technology. Operation Thunder Child touches upon government and military responses to alien encounter and invasion. These books are not mentioned by the authors, even though they are vitally important for any serious study of the genre.

Following on, there are many others. The Alien Years explores the problems in dealing with far more advanced aliens. A Matter for Men and its sequels consider an alien terraforming of Earth. The Kraken Wakes considers contact and war with aliens we never see, hiding within the ocean deeps. The Midwich Cuckoos considers the dangers of a very stealthy and insidious alien invasion. Even Out of the Dark offers useful thoughts on how alien invasion might play out.

A second oversight – potentially more serious – is that there isn’t much information that might be useful at once. What should a USAF officer do when confronted with a crashed UFO? He’d be better briefed if he read Operation Thunder Child. What should we do if we detect an alien mothership heading towards Earth? Footfall offers some helpful suggestions. This book should have included a provisional SOP for possible encounters.

I enjoyed reading this book. Ignore most of my quibbles; this book is a daring and worthwhile read. However, this book has its flaws – and we should not be blind to them. It could cost us…everything.

What lessons can we draw from the past?

• Unity is important. We must present a united front to the aliens. The Aztec Empire included subject nations that fought beside the Spanish, helping to overthrow the Aztecs.
• ET may play with a different political/diplomatic guidebook. Learn as fast as we can. We may end up having to accept their version of the law.
• Learn how to overcome alien tech advantages and duplicate their technology. The Aztecs had a habit of ritual warfare rather than serious warfare – and it cost them. The Native Americans never managed to duplicate European technology to any great extent.

Any others?

Implied Spaces - Walter Jon Williams

 

I have what I tend to think of as a shit list of authors. Generally, it consists of authors who come up with great ideas and then fail to execute them properly – while making me pay full price for a copy of their books. One of the many reasons why the Baen Free Library and Free Samples is such a great idea is that even if I don’t like the samples, I haven’t actually spent any money on the book and don’t feel inclined to bash the author, publisher or anyone else.

Walter Jon Williams has been on my shit list for quite some time, after I paid for a complete set of his Dread Empire Falls books. They were badly written, poorly conceived and completely failed to live up to the promise suggested by the back covers. It was only because I saw Implied Spaces in the library that I decided to buy it and read it. I am pleased (and astonished) to report that it is actually a very good book, reminding me of A Fire Upon the Deep and other far future yarns.

It is several thousand years in the future and humanity has passed through the singularity. Under the benevolent oversight of eleven powerful AIs, humanity has solved most of its ills and has spread out over countless star systems. Most of the human race enjoys living in artificial universes, where they can indulge themselves to the full. Others set out on STL trips across the universe, looking for new worlds to explore.

But all is not well in this paradise. A shadowy figure has launched a plan to take over the world and impose his own order on paradise. A desperate war ensures between the shadowy figure – who has subverted one of the AIs – and the loyalists. The war is a strange mixture of very high-tech and theories that would be understandable today. Much of it is strange and confusing at first glance, yet it makes a certain kind of sense. In a nod to Peter F. Hamilton’s work, backed up copies of dead people can be revived, allowing the dead to live on. One of the enemy’s nastier tricks is an infection that ensures that all who rise from the dead are his devoted loyalists. One gets the feeling that the only thing preventing humanity from being destroyed or enslaved by the AIs are the safeguards built into them, which ironically prevent the AIs from evolving to the point where they can simply out-evolve the enemy.

The villain actually raises a very good point in his megalomania. If there is nothing to strive for, what purpose is there to life? It is not an argument I have much sympathy with, I admit. The people who starve to death each day on our world would love to live in a post-scarcity world. His conception – that the universe is the creation of the Inept, an incompetent God – suggests a greater purpose to life. I do agree with the hero though, in some ways. What are they going to do – seek recompense from God?

In some ways, the ending is too simplistic for my tastes, but it fits in neatly with the rest of the book. The epilogue is actually – although this is not made clear – a note of the price of backsliding into barbarism, as a make-believe world of swords and sorcery becomes real and the mighty civilisation that birthed it nothing more than myths and legends. I’d like to see a sequel at some point.

Those who enjoyed John Ringo’s There Will Be Dragons may note some similar themes, but the story is very different. There are problems with presenting a post-singularity world to modern-day readers, a problem faced by other authors, yet Williams does very well. It really required an appendix too.

Overall, the book showcases the promise – and terrors – of singularity. It is definitely worth a read. A couple more like this and I may even take him off my shit list.

Last Light - Alex Scarrow

Last Light

-Alex Scarrow

Last Light is a book that should have worked and indeed works better than might be expected.  I do have problems with part of the storyline, but I will get to that further on in the review.

It is roughly 2005 (the book got dated very quickly, as it refers to UK forces in Iraq) and terrorists have pulled off a series of strikes that cripple global oil production and distribution.  Through the eyes of a British family, the UK PM and an assassin working for the bad guys, we see the disastrous effects this has on the world.  The Middle East becomes consumed by riots that force the remaining Western forces to hunker down and prepare for withdrawal, while the rapid spread of panic in Britain leads to massive riots and a general collapse of society, something that would have been less believable prior to the 2011 London Riots.

The father of the British family was a prepper (as in survivalist).  He actually did the research that predicted the oil shortage prior to the book’s opening.  His soon to be ex-wife doesn’t believe him, nor does his teenage daughter and son.  As the story unfolds, the father finds himself trapped in Iraq with the British Army, while the mother is forced to make her way home slowly through dangerous streets and the daughter and son are forced to hunker down at home and pray for the end of the crisis.  The PM, meanwhile, loses all control of his country, despite a declaration of martial law and suchlike.  And the assassin is after the daughter…

There is a major weakness in the book which pretty much shattered my suspension of disbelief.  The bad guys behind the plot are a consortium of powerful families that had existed prior to the American Revolution, an idea right out of 100 Bullets.  It would have been easy to believe Islamic terrorists launching the strike, but not a conspiracy of people whose power depends on a stable world.  If this wasn’t bad enough, the assassin is sent after the daughter because she glimpsed one of the bad guys – with the effect that the conspiracy’s own incompetence helped uncover its existence.  What – realistically – is a half-memory from years ago going to do to them?

Past that, the book is sometimes repetitive, but chilling.  The fighting in Iraq is bad, but its worse in Britain.  Both the mother and daughter narrowly avoid being raped more than once – others are not so lucky – and the police and the military are nowhere in evidence.  And there are deaths, including some surprising characters.  The book glides over the multitude of characters – and social attitudes – that weave their way through the crisis.  Some become angels and risk their lives helping others; others fall to darkness and loot, rape and burn at will.  Like most post-apocalyptic novels, there’s no happy ending.  Its bittersweet at best.

I think that the author exaggerates the crisis to some degree.  Yes, a sudden and major cut-off of oil and food would be devastating.  However, the British government seems to have been attacked with crazy-stupid gas.  Instead of making immediate preparations for martial law, the PM appeals to the Dunkirk sprit that saved Britain before.  The government should have responded decisively, instead of an attitude that ranges from denial to wishy-washy reluctance to bite the bullet and crackdown harshly. 

First, don’t announce anything until nightfall – say, around 2300.  Second, call up all police and military reservists.  Hell, call up anyone with military experience.  There’s supposed to be a plan to do just that.  Get their families packed off to secure military bases so the soldiers don’t have to worry about them.  Send troops to the media centres and make sure that they toe the line – no public broadcast until 2300.  Get armed troops out to food storage warehouses, hospitals and other locations that need to be secured.  Set up detention camps for prisoners.  There’s going to be a lot of them.

At 2300, announce the curfew and heavy fuel rationing.  No public sales of petrol to anyone.  Armed police on the streets, particularly in the inner cities, backed up by AFVs if possible.  Take over the media completely; take down the internet and mobile phone networks.  There will be trouble in the rowdier areas; stamp on it hard.  Thugs and looters to be arrested if possible; shot down if not.  Prisoners go to the detention camps.  Areas of heavy rioting to receive a higher police/military presence.  Any peaceful community leaders told to appeal for calm, or else.  Any known agitators/radical imams/whatever to be rounded up before they can do anything. 

Address the nation the following morning.  The priority is to make it clear that the government is in control and that food will be delivered.  Don’t lie – be honest and admit that the country is in for hard times.  And make it clear that rioting will be met with a heavy response.  Food will be rationed; any attempt at hoarding will be heavily punished.

Over the next few weeks, start reopening farms and throw out the EU regulations that killed so many small farms.  The intention is to feed the entire country internally if possible, before running out of food.  Gently relax the security if possible...

None of this will make the government popular, but it is doable and much of the country would survive.

Overall, this book is worth at least one read.  Maybe not a keeper though.

The Dark Path (Doctor Who) - David A. McIntee

The Dark Path (Doctor Who)

-David A. McIntee

A good superhero origin story should be a combination of factors.  It should show us how to be better people while grounding us in the real human world.  Captain America, or Spiderman, or Superman all have origin stories that show them making the decision to be good people, even if their lives are touched by the fantastic.  A hero who lacks that grounding is, at best, an antihero.  At worst he’s a supervillain himself.  Far too many superhero origin stories turn into trite moral lessons.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for a good supervillain origin story.  It should show how weaknesses (pride, or suchlike) bring down a man and turn him into a villain.  Hal Jordan’s transformation into an evil monster was well done; blinded by rage and loss, Hal turned into a monster who destroyed the Green Lantern Corps.  DC Comics, by using a cheap plot device to retcon the whole of Hal’s fall, ruined what was one of their most promising stories.  The most compelling villains have always been the ones who were once good people, and fell.  They were responsible for their own failings and defeats.

I had heard of The Dark Path before RTD gave the Master, the greatest Doctor Who villain, an origin story of sorts.  I found his version unsatisfactory.  The Master could not have been driven mad by a constant drumming in his head, if only because none of the pre-RTD incarnations of the Master referred to it, even during their most dramatic moments.  And then the Master’s appearance in The End of Time was, at best, erratic.  By making the Master the victim of someone far darker, the whole ethos of the Master was cheapened.  He could not be termed responsible for his own actions, let alone his fall into depravity.  And let’s face it – at one point, the Master had to be someone the Doctor liked.

Compared to the RTD-Master, The Dark Path is a work of genius.

Set during the era of the Second Doctor (although tied into the backstory created for the Seventh Doctor New Adventures), the story focuses around a lost colony of the Terran Empire (presumably no connection to the Great and Bountiful Human Empire of the Ninth Doctor).  The Imperials have been studying the DarkHeart, a faded neutron star. These Imperials seem frozen in time from an era when the Empire was still in its glory, and are determined to destroy all real and imagined enemies of the Empire -- including a fleet of Veltrochni ships that happen to pass through the system.  The Veltrochni are unwilling to take this lying down and start launching a mission of revenge, interrupted by the appearance of a cruiser from the Federation (which replaced the Terran Empire).  This rather Star Trek-like plot is interrupted by the arrival of the Doctor and a mysterious man called Koschei.  Koschei, who is clearly a Time Lord in his own right, seems just like the Doctor, complete with TARDIS and a companion, the young Ailla.

Glossing over parts of the plot, the DarkHeart can be used to rewrite entire sections of time and space.  This allows the Imperials to use it to change the DNA of non-human crew on the Federation ship into human DNA (causing no end of confusion) and threaten to turn the Federation into a human paradise.  Sadly, Ailla is killed in the fighting and Koschei vows to attempt to restore her, using the DarkHeart to rewrite history.  He starts helping the Imperials to control the DarkHeart, planning to betray them all the while, once he gets what he wants from the affair.  The Doctor, once he realises what is going on, tries to stop him.

But what Koschei doesn’t know is that Ailla isn't human either.  The Time Lords didn't exactly trust Koschei and gave him a Time Lord supervisor, disguised as a human.  She didn't die at all, merely regenerated.  Having already compromised himself when he started on his mad quest to restore his friend, Koschei goes mad.  The Master has been born.

"What's happened to you?" the Doctor asked, genuinely worried for his friend.

 "My people mistrust me; I kill one of my best friends who was sent to me by the other; and both betray me. I have found myself, Doctor, and I am the stronger for it."

Overall, the Doctor and the Master push everyone else out of the spotlight.  The author captures them both very well; indeed, you can almost hear the actors speaking their lines.  In a written version of Human Nature/The Family of Blood, there is a clear difference between Koschei - a neutral observer who's obviously Delgado but suavely efficient – and the Master, of whom we all know.  One could nitpick the scene where the Master becomes the Master, yet it beats the RTD version by miles.  Jamie and Victoria come across, at first, as a bit wooden, but eventually they sound more like their actor counterparts.  Victoria, though, does get influenced by Koschei – a rather droll reminder of Jo Grant’s first encounter with the Master.

The supporting cast come across very well.  I rather enjoyed some of the banter on the Federation starship and their struggles to understand what was going on around them.  I do have a nitpick – if the crew were transformed into humans, why didn't their memories change as well – but that’s largely harmless.  We have appearances from a dozen races created for Doctor Who over the years, all fun.

Overall, this isn't the best ‘Origin of the Master’ story – that honour goes to a piece of fan fiction, The Naming of Things (http://ariafic.dreamwidth.org/6815.html) – that I have read, but it is pretty fun – and far better than RTD’s version.

Mission of Honor (David Weber)

Mission of Honor



-David Weber

David Weber is one of my favourite authors. And yet, he seems to be going through a very bad patch. First, he started to write the Safehold books, which have started to drag (and the good guys have so many advantages that it’s hard to see how they can lose). And then there was Out of the Dark, which ended with a Deus Ex Machina that came right out of left field. And now…there is Mission of Honor. Like the books I mentioned, it is a frustrating mix of utter brilliance combined with heavy-duty dragging.

The second war between Manticore and Haven has come to a pause, following the savage Battle of Manticore in At All Costs. However, the SKM is on the verge of a confrontation with the Solarian League, the galaxy’s 7000pound gorilla – and totally unaware that an insidious agenda for galactic domination is finally ready to come into the light. As Honor sets off on her peace mission to Haven, Manticore becomes the first target in a new and deadly war…

Now, I may as well get my first gripe out of the way. This book should really have been titled Meetings of Honor. I think that at least half of the book consists of meetings between various key players, all repeating the same conclusions over and over again. Some of those meetings are clearly very important – particularly the ones on Old Earth – but others seem to be there more as a shout-out to various characters from earlier in the series. A second part of the book consists of peace talks on Haven…again, most of them could be addressed in two-three paragraphs. We don’t read Weber for his meetings.

This has its odd aspect as Honor comes across as a bit-player in her own series. We see more of the bad guys and the newly-good guys (Haven’s Committee of Public Safety was replaced by a far better government in Ashes of Victory) than we do of Honor. And for much of her time, Honor seems content to waffle on at the peace conference, rather than simply dictating an acceptable peace.

The second problem is that the events in the book are telescoped. As I understand it, Weber’s original concept was to have the war against the Alignment (which has plans to create a new era of human genetic engineering) several years down the line, after Honor’s death and her children reach adulthood. Instead, he altered this plan – and while it keeps his lead character alive, it also creates an impression that the universe is simply too big to explore. We get what is, effectively, a secret history of the original war, something that is often difficult to believe.

Even so, Weber’s combat scenes are as good as ever, even though he keeps giving the readers massive information dumps. The utterly outclassed Solarian League Navy’s encounter with the RMN is very well detailed. So, too, is the sneak attack launched by the Alignment, although its codename is an utterly groaning pun. (Oyster Bay…)

Overall, this may well be the weakest book in the series, serving more to put an end to one war and start another, rather than exploring Honor’s life and career. I find it harder to get excited about the next book than I did before reading this one – and that is a crying shame.

A State of Disobedience - Tom Kratman

A State of Disobedience

-Tom Kratman

Oddly enough, I only discovered and read this book by accident. I’d seen the preview chapters, but I hadn’t intended to read the whole novel until I was forwarded a copy by a friend. I read the entire book and discovered that I enjoyed it. Score one for Jim Baen’s liberal philosophy on electronic books.

It is roughly 2014 (for some reason, the book’s blurb claims that it is actually set much later in the century). The American Government has won the war on terror. American troops are garrisoning parts of the Middle East and oil supplies have been secured. Unfortunately, in doing so, the government has assumed vast powers over everything from internal security to the economy. And, with the election of the unscrupulous and power-hungry Wilhelmina Rottemeyer (a thinly-veiled Hilary Clinton), the tools designed to fight terrorism are turned against the American people.

Passing new laws against ‘Emotional Terrorism,’ the government starts to clamp down on freedom of expression, culminating in attacks on anti-abortion protesters. In hopes of providing a salutary example to other protesters, federal agents arrange for the massacre of protesters in Texas, ending with a siege uncomfortably reminiscent of Waco. Unluckily for the government, they are besieging a mission operated by the brother of Governor Juanita Seguin, who – eventually – is forced to send the Texan National Guard to intervene. They are too late, however, to prevent a bloody slaughter.

Fuelled by a burning desire for freedom and revenge, Texas separates itself from the federal government. The President, however, cannot allow them to leave the union, knowing that it would break both the country and her personally. The military is prepared for an invasion of Texas, despite considerable doubts as to the wisdom of siding with the President. As the odd war rages on, the President’s grip on power – and events – begins to weaken, until she goes too far. Her power collapses, threatening the integrity of the entire country – and she is assassinated by one of her victims.

The book’s main weak point is that it takes too long to get to the interesting sections – the start of the war itself. Once the crisis has well and truly begun, it picks up speed rapidly, with both sides preparing their forces and plans of campaign. The characters don’t just focus on the military, but also the economical, propaganda and logistical side of the conflict, giving the book a sense of realism lacking in many other books. The military options make sense and the viewpoint characters are realistic. Mind you, the federal agent in command of one of the operations clearly didn’t even study the left-wing version of World War One. Walking up to a defended building in the open is just asking to get mown down.

Using abortion as the trigger event is something of a gutsy move, although I can see how it could be spun by the bad guys and used to justify a very disproportionate response. Personally, as an outside observer of American politics, I am not particularly impressed by either the right or the left’s response to abortion. Both sides engage in too much wishful thinking and hypocrisy. I have a feeling that there is room for both sides to find a compromise, although the loudest voices on both sides would doubtless be horrified at any concessions. That actually illustrates one of the book’s points quite nicely. Politics are becoming so poisonous that losing becomes actively dangerous to one’s future.

The book does have a missed opportunity, for President Rottemeyer is unquestionably evil, with no redeeming values at all. She will do anything to maintain her power. This is something of a pity as the book’s point could have been made quite nicely by using her as a tragic figure of sorts, a true believer in social engineering who convinces herself – every time – that the ends justify her means. The outside observer, on the other hand, would see her sliding down a slippery slope to hell. He would get to see why the President and those who share her beliefs are so badly wrong. Instead, we have a woman who murdered a man standing in her way, organised her husband’s jailing and is quite happy to wade through blood to get what she wants.

Another interesting point about this book is the issue of moral choice. Rottemeyer herself has no morals – she even continues her desperate attempt to cling onto power in the wake of her lover’s resignation and departure. Other characters make hard choices right from the start. Father Montoya risks (and loses) his life by giving sanctuary to a priest who would challenge the government’s version of events. The Governor risks her entire state by standing up to the federal government. Some soldiers and pilots make the decision to resign or go on strike rather than fight the Texans; even General McCreavy, the President’s lesbian lover, eventually leaves her rather than stay by her side. Sometimes this seems more than a little arbitrary; the USAF’s refusal to support Rottemeyer is necessary for the plot, but the soldiers and marines remain faithful until much later.

There are absolutely no shades of grey in this book, although there is some unintentional irony. Liberals are bad and are either true believers who refuse to see the chaos they leave in their wake, or are total hypocrites whose inner feelings are effectively fascist. Conservatives are good guys, always. The bad guys do stupid things for no sensible reason. The list of proposed amendments to the constitution at the end would offend pretty much everyone in the USA.

I confess that that leaves me a little puzzled, if only because the more extreme factions on the American Right wouldn't create a better world than President Rottemeyer and her followers. There isn’t much of a difference between fascism and communism when it comes to the bottom line. They both insist on massive state control of everything. And even though they would find it offensive, I don’t see any real moral difference between those who would insist on multiculturalism and those who wish to ban homosexuality.

Overall, it is hard to rate this book. Some sections are truly excellent. Other sections read very weakly. But it is definitely worth at least one read and serious consideration.  For a first novel (Kratman has written several more since, including three Posleen books) it isn't bad at all.