Peter David often uses veiled references to pop culture in his New Frontier series. I consider the hunt for these bits to be one of many reasons why this series is so popular. However, in this book, the references he makes seem to be on a more political note than their lighter predecessors. I could quite easily be reading too much into this, but some of these references would appear to be in error.

Mueller suggest that to proclaim "Mission Accomplished" is a set-up for future and unplanned casualties. This is in keeping with her personality. However, naval tradition quite often uses this phrase to denote a job well done. Not a war well won, but a specific goal has been met.

It is stated that occupations always fail. Ask an American Indian if that is true. In a Star Trek reference (and as mentioned later in this book), as the Klingons. I am sure this would be common knowledge in the 24th century.

Finally, it is suggested that a pre-emptive strike on a party before they have attacked you is a policy only carried out by madmen. This could be a modern reference to the Bush administration, or perhaps an accusation of America in the 1940's. Germany had showed no signs of aggression toward the American people, yet America attacked them. I for one do not consider this an action of madmen.

Please, let me know if I'm reading too much into this. I hope I am.

Historical point: in WW2 Germany declared war on the US as part of an alliance with Imperial Japan. To claim the US involvment in the war in Europe was some sort of "pre-emptive strike" borders on the ridiculous.--Emperorkalan 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw my use of World War Two, as both the United States and Germany declared war on December 11th, 1941. I appologize. It has been a while since my World War Two history class.

What of the War of Southern Independence? Call it what you like, but the Union invades the CSA, and a hundred years later, everyone congradulates themselves on a good deed done. Granted, not a perfect example of a pre-emptive strike, but since "South=Bad" then does "Invasion=Good"? I will not argue if you are to claim that there were madmen involved in that one.

Am I to take it that you agree that this is a reference to Iraq? ---- AT2 Howell

Not having read the book yet I can't make that assessment, but I'm familiar enough with PD that it wouldn't surprise me. Especially since "Trek" itself has a long history of socio-political commentary, often pretty thinly veiled. Heck, that was one of Roddenberry's motivations for creating the show in the first place. I do think some of your other points are off, but as The Captain points out below, this is not the appropriate place for that discussion. If you want me to be more specific, drop me a note at my User talk page.--Emperorkalan 13:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In this and the other New Frontier books, Calhoun is the poster child for "cowboy diplomacy". In our world "cowboy diplomacy" is a phrase most often associated with the Bush Administration. Is this Peter David's indictment for or against Bush's policies? ---- AT2 Howell

While there are some salient and not-so-salient points raised here, please remember that this page is for discussing additions to the article, not for writing literary reviews or for speculating about the author's motives. Suppose Mr. David had written some of these passages as commentary on Bushisms or the history of US American adventurism -- would it mean any changes to this article? Not really, if all we have are speculatory inferences. -- Captain MKB 05:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Roger that. Would be nice to have a novel discussion tab. ---- AT2 Howell

It's like Kalan said, TrekBBS or another such forum/bulletin board/blog site would make a great place to have conversations about literary themes or allusions. If Peter David or another contributor/published reviewer ever went on record with a commentary on his work, at that point it would be something you could open Memory Beta to. -- Captain MKB 03:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)