UNCLASSIFIED

FROM: Scott Mitchell, futuresoldier@ghostrecon.net

TO: Undisclosed Recipients

MEMORANDUM

SUBJ: Ghost Recon Debate (Part 1) - The "Tom Clancy" Argument

The “Tom Clancy” argument.

One of the arguments I have seen used in the various debates about old Ghost Recon vs. new Ghost Recon reads something along the lines of, “How would Tom Clancy feel about the direction Ghost Recon has taken?”

The question, the way it is posed, suggests that Tom Clancy would be disappointed and would somehow disapprove of the direction Future Soldier is leading the series, but is that an accurate assessment?

I would suggest that people who assume that Tom Clancy wouldn't approve of Future Soldier obviously don't read much of his work. I can't speak for Mr. Clancy's assessment of Future Soldier but I can evaluate his works and draw a few conclusions.

Most of his books were written in the near future from the actual date they were written. And while I acknowledge that Clancy may not write all the books in the current series that bear his name, (Power Plays and Net Force) he contributed to their creation, development and promotion of these series of novels. Both series are heavily dependent on future technology and occur in the present and/or near future.

While Tom Clancy sold the rights to Ubisoft for video games and associated merchandise years ago, it’s interesting to note that nearly every game that has Tom Clancy in the title (Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell, End War, H.A.W.X.) share a few key elements. They occur in the present or near future; they involve the military or similar organizations responding to some type of global crisis; and they all include future technology to some degree that is being researched or under development now.

In personal interviews and comments Mr. Clancy has posted in forums, he doesn’t just “make stuff up” but rather, relies on circumstances, scenarios and technology founded on real world possibilities and/or pursuits.

Furthermore, in an article dated back in 1995, Tom Clancy voiced some of his thoughts on technology...

On the drawbacks to technology: “Look, technology is another word for ''tool.'' There was a time when nails were high-tech. There was a time when people had to be told how to use a telephone. We got past that. Technology is just a tool. People use tools to improve their lives. Man is the only animal that makes and uses tools. Our tools keep getting better, and as a result of that, our lives keep getting better. There are people in our society -- and they used to be called Luddites back in England in the early 19th century -- who think that any new invention is bad. And I don't understand that.”

I mean, look, no matter what you or anyone else does, there will be someone who says that there's something bad about it. Whenever somebody comes up with a good idea, there's somebody else who has never had a good idea in his life who stands up and says, ''Oh, you can't do that because the bicycle manufacturers will go out of business.'' Well, that's too bad. If everybody in the country lives an extra 18 months, then we'll just have to do without the bicycle manufacturers. I'm sorry. I don't really pay them any attention. I'd rather talk to people who do things than complain about other people who do things. I say they're idiots.

On the impact of computers on the military: “Fighting wars is not so much about killing people as it is about finding things out. The more you know, the more likely you are to win a battle. Take the AEGIS system in the navy. It's a radar computer system for air-battle management. What it does is give the commander an extra 15 minutes to decide what he's going to do to fight a battle, and those 15 minutes are decisively important. The army's doing the same thing with a system called IVIS, the Individual Vehicle Information System. It gives every tank and armored vehicle a picture of the battlefield -- where the good guys are and where the bad guys are. It's a revolution because a field commander never has the information he needs. He has to go with his best hunch. The more information he has, the easier it is for him to win the battle.”

“We‘re going to live in the future, whether we like it or not. And we better start planning for it now.” –Tom Clancy

My personal observation based on research of Tom Clancy and his perspective on technology and the future role it will have for the military is that he would completely endorse and support the direction that Future Soldier is taking the series.

Tom Clancy could not be reached for comment. And yes, I really did try.

Stay tuned for the next topic in the series, the “Ghost Recon” argument. Coming soon.

Happy Hunting.

//SIGNED//

Scott Mitchell, futuresoldier@ghostrecon.net