At any rate, he manages to come up with a couple points in the book which are clearly his own narrative (rather than, say, something reasonable to come out of one of his characters), but are nonetheless close to profound (although, again, something of a cliché).
"The Agency is not supposed to do assassinations," he said.
"But it does."
"There's a lunatic element that gives us a bad name. Unfortunately, presidents can't resist the temptation to play secret-agent games, and that encourages the nutcase faction."
"Why don't you turn your back on them all and join the human race?"
"Look. America is full of people who believe that other countries as well as their own have a right to be free–but they're the type of people who turn their backs and join the human race. In consequence, the Agency employes too many psychopaths and too few decent, compassionate citizens. Then, when the Agency brings down a foreign government at the whim of a president, they all ask how this kind of thing can possibly happen. The answer is because they let it. My country is a democracy, so there's nobody to blame but me when things are wrong; and if things are to be put right, I have to do it, because it's my responsibility."
I regularly converse with somebody who says she can't read more than a couple books by the same author because she gets too stuck "in the author's head." I couldn't get more than half-way through the 300pp book without getting tired of being there. Perhaps the most compelling (although coincidental and inadvertent) facet of the book is the fact it was written in 1986 and reads more or less like the reverse of the position we're in presently in Afghanistan.