Note: I received an
advance reader's copy of the book from TCK Publishing – if you are interested in the
book following the review – refer to external links below. Your support to writers is always appreciated.
The American Crusade is a
political narrative with a plot set in early 21st century. A terrorist
attack in the American Midwest has led to the loss of over 3,000 civilian lives.
A terror outfit based out of Kabulistan assumed responsibility leading
to a sentiment of anger among the American public and a demand for reaction with
politicians across party lines identifying opportunities to further their own
cause.
The incumbent president is George
Cane, from the GOP and a powerful political family which has had a president in
the recent past. He was facing the biggest crisis his country had faced in the
recent times, with a potential military invasion in the middle east yet again, within
a span of ten years. In the meantime, the vice-president – Richard Hornsby, is
the man running the show from behind the scenes, an astute and pragmatic
politician who ensures to send the right message to Cane’s core base – and dubbing
the invasion as the final crusade. The opposition had its own issues to deal
with – that an opposition to the war could be perceived as lack of patriotism,
making their chances of winning back the White House remote.
The plot also has various other
issues touched upon – the underlying opposition to homosexuality back in the
day and how an exposé could be a political suicide for any politician. Both
Cane and Hornsby were not shown to have a particular opinion on the issue but
were not hesitant to use it to undermine their opponents or appealing to their
core voters. From a reader’s perspective, it is quite strange to look back and
realise as to how these were highly contentious less than two decades ago and
from there, it is comforting today that an openly gay politician could carry two
states in the 2020 Presidential Primaries – but there is still a long way to go
and I would not digress further in the review.
The multiple issues covered in
the book could make the readers lose track unless they are politically aware,
as there are multiple characters and if we do not understand the context, we
would find the plot to be going nowhere. This meant that there was little scope
for character building – with the exception of Hornsby and George Cane himself –
neither of whom were particularly likeable (owing to my own political leanings
which is no secret).
There was also an interesting sub
plot involving a boy named Abdul in Baghdad, who was appealed by radical Islamist
ideas and was listening to radio from the neighbouring Persepostan (fictionalised
version of Iran). His parents’ struggle to take him away from the path and
Abdul’s skulduggery in continuing with it were my favourite parts of the novel.
Indeed, the book is a work of
fiction but at the same time, it is hard to classify it as such considering it
is written in a manner that makes it feel real; mainly as most of the events in
the story are inspired by events fresh in most of readers’ memories. The
anecdotes linking it with the previous crusade was also interesting; but that
is entirely upto the reader as skipping them would cause no impact on the flow
of the plot.
However, the contemporary nature
of the book was also its weakness; for instance – there is a Republican
president whose family member was also a president less than a decade ago, a powerful
vice president, a terror attack leading to a war in the middle east, a senator
who is worried about damaging her presidential aspirations – who also happens
to have been the first lady in the past, a budding senator who is gaining a lot
of attention and has familial connections to Indonesia, and the list goes on. By
now, have you been able to identify the real-world equivalents of these
characters? If not, you have an amazing political book coming your way.
To me, I felt that I was going
through the news of the past with names of the people changed. One could ask
what’s in a name but when you could use ‘United States’, ‘France’, ‘UK’, ‘Republicans’,
‘Democrats’, etc. I do not understand the reason behind fictionalising Iraq,
Afghanistan and Iran with Sumeristan, Kabulistan and Persepostan respectively.
In fact, Sumeristan even has Baghdad and the Anbar province within its boundaries.
I do not understand the reason behind replacing the names of the sovereign
states.
This is a fast-paced political narrative
– and is enjoyable for those who wish to have a glimpse into the conversations
and power struggles among the politicians in power. I understand that there is going
to be a sequel to the book and I shall be looking forward to it. On that note,
I would award the book a rating of seven on ten.
Rating – 7/10
External links:
TCK Publishing: https://www.tckpublishing.com/
Amazon link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07P66T3YW
(US Link - available in Europe as well)
Have a nice day,
Andy
Andy