What is the premise of the Net ops books? Is it internet or computer terrorism or something? Is there any books related to the Ghost Recon games? Or mention of Ghost Recon units in any of the books?
You gotta admit, he comes up with some cool names for his elite squads.
Another vote for The Hunt for Red October.
And I’m also agreeing with the general opinion of The Bear and The Dragon. Yawn.
Stinkpalm,
The Net Ops books deal with computer stuff as well as general CIA stuff. The books just suck. I believe that Clancy had a co-writer or a ghost writer for the NetOps books. I read the first book and about half of the second and figured out that they sucked. Clancy just didn’t know enough to make these books realistic.
Slee
I think “Sum of All Fears” was the best. It had the best plot, and the best resolution. Clear and Present Danger is a good one too, I liked its mix of action and politics. By Debt of Honor, though, I think the series started to drag, and I think Executive Orders had some parts that were worth skipping over. I agree that “Bear and the Dragon” was pretty lame, and is probably where the Ryanverse officially jumps the shark. This book probably had Clancy’s poltics show through more than any other. If you want it spoiled, here you go:
Clancy pretty much spends 1000+ pages saying how stubborn and stupid China is, and we need missile defense because it works. In the end, China launches a nuclear missile at us, which is shot down. I could be wrong, because it’s been a long time since I’ve read it.
Rainbow Six was a good read, though, and I think of his remaining books, this would make the best movie. Debt of Honor/Executive Orders (they are pretty much one big book) can never ever be made into a movie any more for PC reasons (someone else can spoil those books for you), and TBATD is just too boring for the big screen.
To answer the OP, Rainbow Six was one of the worst. Red Rabbit was worth reading just for the fact that I think it’s setting up more books having to do with the Foleys, which should be interesting.
Akin to the unedited version of “The Stand” that put back all the junk the editors took out. 
Do any oher successful authors subvert their editors?
I liked Red October and Cardinal, but my favorite is Sum of All Fears. That book blew me away. Plus, it has Northwestern University winning the Rose Bowl! Hooray!
Hated Bear and the Dragon, and glad to know I’m not the only one.
I TRIED finishing Rainbow 6.
I’m sorry people, but I just couldn’t get over the boredom.
About 19/20ths of that book was just talking… then it “got good at the end”, said a close friend of mine.
I was trying to read it at 15. That may have been why I couldn’t bare it.
But I have read other novels, large novels, and they weren’t so dissapointing…
I can’t understand why people said that book was so good. 
One vote for Red Storm here. And any of the first three four books of the Jack Ryan series are a good read, and try and take them in order.
And the quality of his work had been falling, in my opinion, in relation to Jack’s proximity to the presidency. The closer he gets the more it sucks. Perhaps this is due the huge gulf between Clancy’s politics and my own, but the writing seems to be worse, also. The basic formula is there: the worldwide scope, the detailed action, the thrilling military operations, but peppered with really lame romance, ridiculous dialogue and some really right-wing politics. I mean waaaay over there right wing. Stick with the early work and you’ll be in good shape.
I really enjoyed Hunt for Red October (who didn’t?), Red Storm Rising, Debt of Honor, and Without Remorse.
Without Remorse is a different type of book, but I really enjoyed the way that Clark is shown as the SEAL, and how he hunts his prey.
I would recommend that you start out at the beginning and just read them in the sequential order that they were published. HfRO was pretty good, but I think CotK or CaPD were the best.
My dad and I read them and then discuss. He loves PG.
The reason I think that you should read them as published is because they are somewhat different in style. Some (SoaF, CotK) are much more technical than others (PG, CaPD, WR).
If you are a patient ultra-conservative, you will love tBaD. I am not, but I did not hate it. The first 750 pages were boring, but after that it was OK. I do not think that you can just start with that on or DoH or EO (which is one of his top 3-4 IMHO).
First of all, I think Clancy’s top two books, as seems to be the general consensus of this thread, are:
The Hunt for Red October
and
The Sum of All Fears (the movie was not bad, and it was only a pale imitation of the book)
Secondly, does anyone else have an opinion on Red Rabbit?
Thirdly, for those who liked Without Remorse because John Clarke is such an ass-kicker, I highly recommend Point of Impact by Stephen Hunter.
Damn!
That explains alot. (And I bet that Red October was edited, because it came out back before he was a big deal, and he probably had no choice but to listen to his editor. Stephen King has a similar problem, but Clancy is just horrible. His recent stuff is so full of redundancies that I wonder if he even read it once through after he wrote it!
At one stage during either TBatD or R6 I was going to go through the book with a highlighter and highlight how many times he used the phrases “based on the venerable 727 airframe” and “doesn’t … worth a damn”.
I am a huge Clancy fan and think that his books went downhill from Sum of All Fears. I still occasionally re-read Red Storm Rising, HFRO, COTK, CaPD, WR, DoH, and SoAF. Then it just got old. The Bear and the Dragon wasn’t awful as a stand alone book, but compared with everything else he’s written, it was a bit disappointing. I did like Red Rabbit though, for the reason that gus28 said. There is a lot of focus on the Foleys who are two characters that have always interested me but never been given much spotlight. I think Clancy would re-hook me if he wrote another book about them and one about Robby Robinson. And if he put some originality into it, I would like to see something more about Bart Mancuso. Jack is a dead horse.
For the OP, yes, Domingo “Ding” Chavez, is one and the same. All of the early books are good. I liked Rainbow Six but not as much as HFRO, RSR (which doesn’t deal with Jack, Ding, or Clark), and CaPD. I always liked how he jumps around from subplot to subplot and ties it all up at the end. To me though, Clancy is like Stephen King. His best work has long since been done. It’s time to get a pen name and/or leave while he’s ahead.
I have to agree with the general “used to be good during the Cold War but went downhill with ‘President Jack’” consensus.
Another one I like is Patriot Games. What can I say, I’m an Irish-phile…Erin-o-phile…Fenian-o-phile. Whatever.
Besides Clark and Domingo Chavez, I love the Foleys. Especially Mary Pat. Kick-ass sexy mom spy. How can ya go wrong?
There are quite a few these days. It seems after an author has a single hit, he can laugh at editors and get what he wants printed.
A prime example is Richard Adams, whose runaway hit Watership Down pretty much made him untouchable, judging by the crap that ended up in his next couple of books, with the possible exception of Shardik.
Oh, for the days and the example of Maxwell Perkins at Scribner’s, who had the clout and the balls to face down authors like Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Thomas Wolfe in their prime!
He rehashed “Red Storm Rising” except that it was 20 years later, pitting the Russians vs. the Chinese and a bit of “Japanese Sausage” was thrown in. Oh, and put in the stupid save-the-world-at-the-last-minute-ending.
I have read them all, but would limit recommendations to:
Sum of all fears
Clear and present danger
Red storm rising
Withour remorse
Patriot games
The later books get progressively less interesting. Rainbow Six was pushing it, The bear and the dragon was crap. I am not going to touch his newest.