Archer as Captain

[WarpGirl]

Or maybe Archer just didn't think, in the heat of the moment, to make that argument.

See that right there is the thing that gets me. I can recognize if they made it clear he tried every arguement he had (for a reasonable amount of time) and went through everything with his crew and MACO's but they made it clear he didn't do any of that. None of it!

And he had the time to argue with T'Pol and plan the mission. While we see everything condenced into 45 min hours pass in the episode.

[Alelou]

The argument with T'Pol was the episode's attempt to give the other side in a dramatic way without bogging down the story. We also saw Archer actually struggling with the decision -- literally in a dark room -- when he talked to Phlox beforehand. And that scene made it very clear that he knew doing that would be crossing a line and that he wasn't happy about it.

[Kotik]

Or maybe Archer just didn't think, in the heat of the moment, to make that argument.

See that right there is the thing that gets me. I can recognize if they made it clear he tried every arguement he had (for a reasonable amount of time) and went through everything with his crew and MACO's but they made it clear he didn't do any of that. None of it!

And he had the time to argue with T'Pol and plan the mission. While we see everything condenced into 45 min hours pass in the episode.

As SB said. Enterprise wasn't an explorer's ship at the time, she was a warship and Archer had absolutely NO TIME to go asking others, what they think about it. He knew that he was crossing a line, ethically, which is why he asked Phlox about having to make an unethical decision. To me his 'worries' were actually somewhat exaggerated, because:

- he ordered a ship full of Klingons to be blown to kingdom come
- he tortured the alien in the airlock
- his orders resulted in the destruction of the Seleya
- he had Phlox create a sentient being, just to harvest some tissue and let it die (Sim)
- he tampered with the mind of another being (Degra in "Strategem")

I think he had suspended some of his humanity way before the encounter with the Illyrians and he had to do so, else the mission would have failed. If anything, season 3 shows, just how dirty a business war is.
I may be over-analyzing, but I think it is also a political message. Most conflicts since the 90's were publically made appear to be just a series of surgically precise strikes against military installations and personell with no harm done to civilians. ENT dared to show that no one stays without guilt in wartime, even if the cause is justified.

To me it was disappointig that Archer's problems lasted only for one episode ("Home"). I think he was "healed" too quickly. Rigil Kent does a good job in "Divergent Paths", showing how Archer struggles with the aftermath of losing crewmembers, partly as the result of his own orders.

[WarpGirl]

Wait are you saying on warships the Captian does not confer with the officers? I'm not saying that the final decisions was not in Archer's responsibility, it was. But I'm sorry, I know enough about the military to know the Captain must confer with officers about tactical response and get different ideas about how to implement the course of action. And usually Captains of warships do not even plan the stratagy of war. That goes on in little rooms somewhere. But they still need to the officers to carry out the battle plan. And those officers give imput on how to get it done.

In this case it was different, Archer had no orders from SF Command except "Stop it if you can." So a man with no warfare experience was making a battle plan up as he went along. When he had one tactical officer, and a whole squad of actual soldiers that he never once asked anything about stratagy or tactics. OK what the heck am I missing????????????? I'm not saying it was supposed to be a group vote, or a democracy. What I am saying is I don't understand how Archer was qualified to make these decisions without any imput or guidence from people trained to know these things.

This is probably a bad example but the President of the United States, is not a military man however he is responsible for making the decisions for the US military as a whole. But he doesn't plan the military operations of the US alone. He's got the Joint Chiefs, and hundreads of other people giving him imput in order to make the decision he feels is best. The buck stops with him right wrong or otherwise... But he does not do it alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Brandyjane]

No matter that the others may have looked at him with accusation in thier faces he was the one who had to make these decisions. No one else. Enterpriise was not a democracy where verything is voted on. It was amilitary ship (sorry if I keep repeating this but it is important because it points up that it is Archer as commander has the ultimate decision and the ultimate responsibilty.) If the mission fails he gets the blame and if it succeds he gets the credit. that is the way it is.

Exactly. It's strange, other Trek captains are criticized for letting their crew talk a little too freely, but Archer is frequently bashed for not seeking his crew's advice or taking it when offered. (I should know: I'm one of the people who has said many times that he should have done what T'Pol or Malcolm said several times throughout the show's run.)

I found this comparison of Star Trek's and Firefly's chain of command a while back, and it stuck with me:

Star Trek:
Picard: "Arm photon torpedoes!"
Riker: "Captain! Are you sure that's wise?"
Troi: "Captain! I'm picking up conflicting feelings about this! And, it appears that you're a 'fraidy cat."
Wesley: "Captain, I'm just an annoying punk, but I thought I should say something."
Worf: "Captain, can I push the button? This is giving me a big Klingon warrior chubby."
Giordi: "Captain, I think we should reverse the polarity on them first."
Picard: "I'm so confused. I'm going to go to my stateroom and look
pensive."

Firefly:
Captain: "Let's shoot them."
Crewman: "Are you sure that's wise?"
Captain: "You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here."
Crewman: "Aye Aye, sir!"

Archer - especially in season three - is more of the second type of captain. Maybe the writers heard that some viewers thought the captain needed to be more independent and decided to write Archer's approach to chain of command differently. Unfortunately - especially in the first two seasons - Archer often acted unilaterally in situations where he really should have taken someone else's counsel. However, in season three he did what he had to do to save Earth.

[justTripn]

I think, as Alelou said, that the show was put together pretty well, devoting the correct amount of time to each step, for realism and drama. And of course the decision was made quickly and we feel that. When I first watched the show, I was apalled that they were really going to steal the warp coil and disappointed that Trip seemed so gung ho about it, which is how the writers wanted us to react. I never felt that any one person was out of character. It was more that Star Trek itself was suddenly out of character. But admittedly, I didn't have a better counterplan to stealing the warp coil, so . . . I considered it a successful episode. It made you think. As Kotik was saying, I took it that Enterprise was attempting to show us the horrors of war and how you don't typically get out of it with your hands clean--that civilians will be harmed.

I also think the begging money for the bus analogy is a good one. Anyone who needed a warp coil for any reason could have made up the story that Archer told. I remember a better analogy. A story we had to read in school. In frontier times, a family was floating down the river on a raft with all their possessions in the world and out of the bushes come a woman screaming to stop and help her, that Indians are attacking. The father tells the children to hide their eyes and they float on by. Later he tell his children that this is a common ploy so a family cam be ambushed if they stop to help. The family never knows whether the case that they saw was real or fake.

Firefly did a good job of showing us that space is big and wide and dangerous and if you randomly meet a ship they may very well be pirates. In Star Trek, space is generally a very friendly place. If you break down, someone will be along soon to help you out. This is NOT the case in the Expanse, where everyone is preying on each other, and they may not be able to leave for a very long time (because of that hyperbaric cloud barier or whatever). So NO you do not give up your warp coil to some people you meet who tell you a crazy story about needing to save their planet.

[aadarshinah]

I never felt that any one person was out of character. It was more that Star Trek itself was suddenly out of character. But admittedly, I didn't have a better counterplan to stealing the warp coil, so . . . I considered it a successful episode. It made you think.

Which, I think, sums up the episode nicely. Archer was behaving exactly as we would expect him to behave, given previous episodes, so we really should be praising the consistant writing....

[honeybee]

It's interesting to note that much of the criticism of Archer is leveled at him either for 1) not being military enough or 2) being too military.

It's pretty well established that Starfleet is more a a Nasa-type organization in the first two seasons, and there's little expectation of violence or combat being a part of the job. This is pretty well-established in Broken Bow. Humanity thinks they've put the days of war behind them. This differentiates Archer from all over Starfleet captains. Kirk knew large scale war with aliens was a real threat, both from the Romulans and the Klingons. Picard is well-trained in both military and diplomatic protocols.

Archer becomes a military commander by necessity, when his ambition was to be a pilot, a captain and an explorer. He's not comfortable or happy in the position and makes missteps. Meanwhile, he's literally got all the responsibility for saving the world. Kirk and the subsequent captains were not generally on their own and were better trained.

Small but tangentially related: While some of the language and rankings in civilian aviation are based on military aviation, many protocols have evolved away from military hierarchy. Co-pilots are trained to speak up and even abort takeoffs if they truly believe the pilot is making a mistake. This was not the case until the god-awful Tenerife runway collision. The black box tapes show that the co-pilot of the KLM flight realized that they did not have proper clearance, but he (in all likelihood) did not move to stop the pilot because it was against the rules as well as the culture for him to do so. After that disaster, those rules and protocols changed. I'm not sure if this has changed in military aviation, and of course, this is all about technical safety rather than ethics.

[WarpGirl]

It's pretty well established that Starfleet is more a a Nasa-type organization in the first two seasons, and there's little expectation of violence or combat being a part of the job. This is pretty well-established in Broken Bow. Humanity thinks they've put the days of war behind them.

Archer becomes a military commander by necessity, when his ambition was to be a pilot, a captain and an explorer. He's not comfortable or happy in the position and makes missteps. Meanwhile, he's literally got all the responsibility for saving the world. Kirk and the subsequent captains were not generally on their own and were better trained.

Isn't this all the more reason for him to get regular sound advice from the people that have training in military tactics and diplomacy? It's not like he did not have the resources available to him.

1. He had T'Pol, who has more diplomatic experience then him. She could have helped with negotiating with the other Captain.

2. He had Malcolm who was trained in military matters, (in the first season he's constantly moaning about dicipline and protocals) and is a trained tactician. He knows war at least on an intellectual level, and was trained to develop ways to win them.

3. Finally and this is the most improtant resource...He has the MACO's. While SF officers of the ENT era were not trained for wars or combat, the MACO's most certainly ARE! In the 3rd season they went to huge almost comical lengths to show the difference between the MACO's and the SF personel. Hayes should have been apart of planning everything, he should have been briefing Archer, and giving him counsel.

If Archer had used his resources like any good leader should he might not have had to make so many "tough" choices. Some of them might have been able to be avoided because he'd be relying on more than just his own judgement. Alexander the Great, Julius Cesar, Douglas MacArthur, Truman... And dozens of other great Military leaders relies on their resources to get the job done, and still managed to be the ones "in charge."

[Silverbullet]

I would be flogging a dead horse but, again. Starfleet was military and Enterprise was a military ship. Hoshi said she had been given a Bad conduct discharge. Nasa fires people or teminates thier employment they don't hand out Bad conduct discharges. the military does that.

Star felet has Admirals in Charge. Nasa has retired Admirals not active duty. On Enterprise there are Officers with Officers rankings and enlisted with enlisted rankings. It is not a democracy. Archer is forever saying that is an Order. Nasa would not use that term. do it please would be more likely.

As I said
Both the Air Force and the Marines/Army are military but vastly diffferent. The Air force is a technuical service. Its ony combantnats are the Fighter pilots which make up abut 10 percent f the Air Force. Bombers are almost history now. It is Rockets and missles which take programmers, technicians. Supporrt types are the same excpet for Cooks and supply. The Air force is military uin that its members wear a Uniform , salute and stand at attention when speaking to a higher ranking person. Other than that they are more simlar to a civilian than a Marine or soldier.

A grunt Marine or soldier slogs through mud, dirt, sand or whatever. Lives in fox holes part of the time and find shelter where ever. he has someone actively tryin gto kjill him 24 hours a day. He doesn't sleep on clean sheet in a bed and have three hot meals a day as an Airman has. His training is comopletely different. It is rugged and trains the man to be a killer. Not so in the air force.

Starfleet is like the Air foce. it is a technical branch of the military. almost civilian like but still military. It it is a hybred. Neither fish nor fowl.

That is my story and I am sticking to it.

[honeybee]

I actually have to correct you on that point, SB. The Commanders on NASA shuttles can and do give orders, as do the Captains of civilian aircraft. I am particularly aware of this through having covered Space Center Houston/Mission Control as a reporter. Nasa does exist somewhere in between civilian aviation and military aviation - but all personnel are expected to obey the orders of the commanding officer if it comes to that. The difference is, that it doesn't always come to that and particularly within the culture of NASA.

Additionally, NASA officers - captains and commanders and the like - are on the same paid grade/scale as their military counterparts in the air force and navy despite it not being a military organization by self- definition.

And SB, you are welcome to your opinion, however, - I will reiterate, there is not textual evidence that Starfleet is modeled after the Airforce rather than NASA. Canon contradicts itself and it remains a valid interpretation to see Starfleet as more analogous to NASA than to the military. This in fact, makes Archer's situation more dramatic in the third season. I especially believe that culture and command styles would evolve away from military functionality in a society that believed it had evolved beyond war. I do believe the the ship functioned as a military vessel in the third season, but I see that as a marked change from seasons 1 and 2.

[justTripn]

I would be flogging a dead horse but, again. Starfleet was military and Enterprise was a military ship. Hoshi said she had been given a Bad conduct discharge. Nasa fires people or teminates thier employment they don't hand out Bad conduct discharges. the military does that.

Star felet has Admirals in Charge. Nasa has retired Admirals not active duty. On Enterprise there are Officers with Officers rankings and enlisted with enlisted rankings. It is not a democracy. Archer is forever saying that is an Order. Nasa would not use that term. do it please would be more likely.

As I said
Both the Air Force and the Marines/Army are military but vastly diffferent. The Air force is a technuical service. Its ony combantnats are the Fighter pilots which make up abut 10 percent f the Air Force. Bombers are almost history now. It is Rockets and missles which take programmers, technicians. Supporrt types are the same excpet for Cooks and supply. The Air force is military uin that its members wear a Uniform , salute and stand at attention when speaking to a higher ranking person. Other than that they are more simlar to a civilian than a Marine or soldier.

A grunt Marine or soldier slogs through mud, dirt, sand or whatever. Lives in fox holes part of the time and find shelter where ever. he has someone actively tryin gto kjill him 24 hours a day. He doesn't sleep on clean sheet in a bed and have three hot meals a day as an Airman has. His training is comopletely different. It is rugged and trains the man to be a killer. Not so in the air force.

Starfleet is like the Air foce. it is a technical branch of the military. almost civilian like but still military. It it is a hybred. Neither fish nor fowl.

That is my story and I am sticking to it.

Cool! That was also my general understanding, thought I'm clearer now with how you just explained it, Silverbullet.

[panyasan]

Finally and this is the most improtant resource...He has the MACO's. While SF officers of the ENT era were not trained for wars or combat, the MACO's most certainly ARE! In the 3rd season they went to huge almost comical lengths to show the difference between the MACO's and the SF personel. Hayes should have been apart of planning everything, he should have been briefing Archer, and giving him counsel.

If Archer had used his resources like any good leader should he might not have had to make so many "tough" choices. Some of them might have been able to be avoided because he'd be relying on more than just his own judgement. Alexander the Great, Julius Cesar, Douglas MacArthur, Truman... And dozens of other great Military leaders relies on their resources to get the job done, and still managed to be the ones "in charge."

I agree with you that Archer should have consulted more people. But also great leaders don't always do this (with disaster as result). I can name you a very famous English general who wouldn't listen to some intell and the battle that followed cause WWII to end much later.
As for Archer, even if he had consulted every one and begged etc, his options would be very limited.

[Silverbullet]

Yes, Honeybee, the person in charge gives orders and subordinates follow them. that is true in cvilian and military. It is a fact of life. You have bosses or foremen who give orders to workers. It is how the orders are given which seperate the civilian from the military.

NAsa, Neil Armstrong was a civilian and Buzz aldren was military but Armstrong was the commander because someone had to be in charge. Not sure if NASA has comanders or Captains as much as supervisors and officials.

As you say it is anyones opinion so we ccan leave it at that.

[Silverbullet]

Double post. Panysann, you would't be referring to Montgomery and "Market Garden?" He completel yignored the dutch undergroundf which told him the roads wre too narrow and that the Germans had some of its best fighters in position. Montegomery chose to think that he faced old men and boys. Market Garden had it worked would hve ended the war sooner but as it was it took resources that could have been used by Patton and that would have ended WWII earlier.