StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Something I've noticed. Is Starfleet Command the REAL bad guy in Star Trek?

Before you respond, "That's silly," read my post here.

Almost every time the brass from Starfleet appear, they do something bad, something against the prime directive, or are jerks.

It seems that only the Captains believe in the Prime Directive and Starfleet's purpose- the Admirals routinely order the opposite of the so called "right thing to do". The captains usually have to fight the admirals.

For example, there's
1) The Starfleet Admiral in Insurrection, who worked with the So'na
2) The Starfleet Admiral and Head of Starfleet Intelligence in Pegasus, who broke the Prime Directive and the treaty with the Romulans by developing a phase cloak
3) The female Admiral (forget her name) that's always being a snot to Picard and Sisko. In one episode Picard sucked up to her because he knew she hated him, by making her favorite cookies and tea
4) The Starfleet Admiral in "Paradise Lost" that was attempted a coup to take over the Federation
5) The top Starfleet Ambassador in "Too Short a Season", who was responsible for a savage 40 year long war on a certain planet
6) The Starfleet Admiral who tried to take Data's daughter away
7) The brass at Starfleet who told Odo that if he didn't get progress from the baby changeling soon, they'd take the baby changeling away and do 'tests' on it
The Admiral who ordered the Defiant not to save Odo and Garak and not to stop Tain when the OO and Tal'Shiar attacked the Dominion in "The Die is Cast"
9) The entire Starfleet Command, when they get their minds taken over by oversized cockroaches in "Conspiracy"
10) The Starfleet Admiral who tells Ro to offer the Bajoran terrorists weapons from him
11) More I can't seem to remember at this moment

Constantly, Starfleet Admirals choose to ignore the suffering of individuals behind a line drawn on a map (case in point: The Maquis, and Bajorans). Picard was sympathetic, but the Admirals weren't.

Is Starfleet Command the true "bad guys" of Star Trek? After all, while the Federation are the "good guys", Starfleet Command is always telling the Captains to do something they thing is wrong, something they don't want to do, etc, etc...

You forgot Admiral Janeway.

Admiral Ross from DS9 was a good guy, but even he conspired with Section 31 on one occasion. I guess these Admirals like to bend the rules for the benefit of the Federation.

The Admiral in Insurrection wanted to help people by gathering that tenchnobabble radiation, and also we see Admirals who wanted to study lost tech ( Datas Daughter's Positronic Brain) and an alien foes biology ( the baby changeling) to help further Federation science. The Pegasus Admiral wanted to fix a strategic and tactical disadvantage the Federation had with the Romulans by developing a cloaking device. Likewaise, the Admiral in "Paradise Lost" wanted to strengthen defenses against the Dominion. What they did may not have been "right" they were doing it for the Federation.

As for the others, the Admirals in Conspiracy were under alien control. The Admiral in the "Die is Cast" didnt do anything wrong. The Defiant was needed to defend Bajor in case of a Dominion counter-attack. Defending a planet is more important then looking for a single person.

Several of those Admirals are inept or under outside control rather than being malicious.

Praxis wrote:Almost every time the brass from Starfleet appear, they do something bad, something against the prime directive, or are jerks.

These are admirals. They're always arseholes.

It seems that only the Captains believe in the Prime Directive and Starfleet's purpose- the Admirals routinely order the opposite of the so called "right thing to do". The captains usually have to fight the admirals.

There's something wrong with an organisation like that.

Incidentally in TOS there was "The Omega Glory" which showed us what happens when a Starfleet CAPTAIN goes bad. It was really cool watching Kirk and Tracy, cuffed together, fighting each other. That was a badass fight.

But that's just to show that not all Admirals are the villains and not all Captains are virtuous.

1) The Starfleet Admiral in Insurrection, who worked with the So'na

To create a 'youth drug' or something, which of course violated the non-interference directive. So billions of people will have to make do and grow old, while a couple hundred country yokels get to live forever in their selfish existence. Sounds like he was trying to do the right thing to me.

2) The Starfleet Admiral and Head of Starfleet Intelligence in Pegasus, who broke the Prime Directive and the treaty with the Romulans by developing a phase cloak

A treaty which allowed the Romulans to gain a supreme tactical advantage over their Federation opponents, and to do so with virtual impunity in a pre-emptive war (the Romulan attacks on the Narendra 3 and Khitomer outposts belonging to the Klingons were surprise attacks and vicous - what if those had been Federation colonies?).

3) The female Admiral (forget her name) that's always being a snot to Picard and Sisko. In one episode Picard sucked up to her because he knew she hated him, by making her favorite cookies and tea

Admiral Necheyev IIRC. She told Picard off in "Descent" part one, for not taking advantage over the Borg vulnerability to at least trial a WMD against them. Forgetting for the moment the weird neature of this WMD, the fact remains Picard could have and SHOULD have authorised it. Those that opposed it - Crusher, LaForge - should have been relieved of duties. Neither one of them had the moral high ground - how many people died at Wolf 359? How many engineers lost their lives when the Borg used their cutting laser on the E-D's stardrive section? How many people did Crusher have to stitch back together, or zip up the body bags of?

4) The Starfleet Admiral in "Paradise Lost" that was attempted a coup to take over the Federation

Kinda agree. Then again, he was kind of right. Earth was vulnerable and he showed just how vulnerable in a pseudo coup.

5) The top Starfleet Ambassador in "Too Short a Season", who was responsible for a savage 40 year long war on a certain planet

He was also an Admiral. Either way, this is a good one. As in, good example.

6) The Starfleet Admiral who tried to take Data's daughter away

This is iffy with me. I personally feel Data should have volunteered to assist Starfleet Cybernetics to create more Soong-type androids.

7) The brass at Starfleet who told Odo that if he didn't get progress from the baby changeling soon, they'd take the baby changeling away and do 'tests' on it

I can't remember what you're talking about.

The Admiral who ordered the Defiant not to save Odo and Garak and not to stop Tain when the OO and Tal'Shiar attacked the Dominion in "The Die is Cast"

Good idea. The Romulans and Cardassians were effectively 'declaring war' on the Dominion with their pre-emptive strike. The Dominion, in turn, would declare war on those powers - long time adversaries to the Federation - and leave Starfleet alone.

Or, if the attack would have succeeded then the Dominion would have been decapitated (theoretically - given the decentralised nature of the Dominion it's doubtful the attack would have had the effect Tain hoped for). Why provoke the Dominion when they're going to come out looking for the arseholes responsible and the Federation can turn to them and say "It wasn't us guys - it was them."

9) The entire Starfleet Command, when they get their minds taken over by oversized cockroaches in "Conspiracy"

They like to eat worms too. That's gross.

But to be fair, they also weren't operating under their own volition.

10) The Starfleet Admiral who tells Ro to offer the Bajoran terrorists weapons from him

Scummy.

Constantly, Starfleet Admirals choose to ignore the suffering of individuals behind a line drawn on a map (case in point: The Maquis, and Bajorans). Picard was sympathetic, but the Admirals weren't.

That's how it is, I'm afraid. The admirals represent the bureaucracy that screws you over. The captains represent the individual who can directly change events by intervening, or by standing by and watching.

Is Starfleet Command the true "bad guys" of Star Trek? After all, while the Federation are the "good guys", Starfleet Command is always telling the Captains to do something they thing is wrong, something they don't want to do, etc, etc...

No, the 'true' bad guys in Star Trek are those fuckers with the latex arse crack painted onto their faces.

Some admirals were definitely scummy. But not all of the examples you gave really merit it as a generalisation.

The Starfleet Admiral and Head of Starfleet Intelligence in Pegasus, who broke the Prime Directive

How was the Prime Directive broken by developing a cloaking device?!?

Constantly, Starfleet Admirals choose to ignore the suffering of individuals behind a line drawn on a map (case in point: The Maquis, and Bajorans). Picard was sympathetic, but the Admirals weren't.

Of course. Picard is out there, and he sees what's happening. For the admirals, it's just text on the PADD, just another report; they don't see it and it doesn't strike home. This isn't necessarily a symptom of evil villainy; it's a fairly common human failing.

Good idea. The Romulans and Cardassians were effectively 'declaring war' on the Dominion with their pre-emptive strike. The Dominion, in turn, would declare war on those powers - long time adversaries to the Federation - and leave Starfleet alone.

Except that they'd have to use the wormhole, in Federation territory, to launch their attacks. Do you really think they'd leave DS9 alone?

I think you're wrong about case 1 and 2, where the admirals are clearly using "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few sanctimonious nitpicking morons and also people who want to kill us"-style logic.

In both cases, the longterm health and safety of the federation was jeopardized by the "moral" concerns of an idiot captain. Insurrection showed us that Picard goes all evil when he falls for selfish mennonite women.

If you think about it, it's the people in charge of the Admirals that are the bad guys.

I mean, look at some of the bone-head decisions the Federation council has supported.

i.e:
Not backing the Klingons on invading Cardassia when there's a chance the Dominion took it over
The original treaty with the Romulans that prevented the development of Cloaking Technology (IRC some of the stuff I read in at-the-time canon Star trek books, Earth was WINNING the Romulan War when the Romulans sued for peace)
Going Communist
etc

I think the Admirals, in a better position then the Captains, get to see how seriously fucked up behind the scences the UFP is and finally decide to try to do something about it

I'm not saying that the Admirals are doing something I disagree with. Actually, I think developing a cloaking device is a good idea, letting the Dominion get wiped out would be a good idea, etc, etc.

HOWEVER, whenever something like this occurs, the captains in EVERY INCIDENT, FOUGHT the Admirals. Since the Captains are the main characters, doesn't this make the Admirals the bad guy, even though they're doing something good for the Federation, since the Captains (Picard, Sisko) are against them?

I can't remember what you're talking about.

The episode, "The Begotten", the same episode in which Kira had the O'Brien's baby. Quark sold Odo (who was not a changeling anymore, stripped of the ability by the founders) a sick baby changeling. They cured it, and he tried to teach it how to shapeshift, and succeeded, but he wanted to do it without doing the nasty 'tests' that were done on him as an infant. However Starfleet told him to hurry up or they'd take the infant changeling away and do tests on it.
It turned out the baby changeling wasn't completely cured, and just before it died, it merged with Odo and gave him his shapeshifting abilities back out of gratitude for his help.

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:I think you're wrong about case 1 and 2, where the admirals are clearly using "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few sanctimonious nitpicking morons and also people who want to kill us"-style logic.

In both cases, the longterm health and safety of the federation was jeopardized by the "moral" concerns of an idiot captain. Insurrection showed us that Picard goes all evil when he falls for selfish mennonite women.

True, the Admirals were doing the smart thing, but Picard fought him and since Picard is "the good guy"...well...that makes the Admiral "The bad guy".

How was the Prime Directive broken by developing a cloaking device?!?

Correction. He broke the Treaty of Algeron, not the Prime Directive. My apologies.

Good idea. The Romulans and Cardassians were effectively 'declaring war' on the Dominion with their pre-emptive strike. The Dominion, in turn, would declare war on those powers - long time adversaries to the Federation - and leave Starfleet alone.

Or, if the attack would have succeeded then the Dominion would have been decapitated (theoretically - given the decentralised nature of the Dominion it's doubtful the attack would have had the effect Tain hoped for). Why provoke the Dominion when they're going to come out looking for the arseholes responsible and the Federation can turn to them and say "It wasn't us guys - it was them."

True, don't forget- Sisko disobeyed the Admiral (who had one of his officers sabotage the Defiant). Since Sisko was fighting the Admiral, that makes the Admiral the "bad guy" of the episode (in addition to the Dominion).

This is iffy with me. I personally feel Data should have volunteered to assist Starfleet Cybernetics to create more Soong-type androids.

Yes, however Data was recognized by the Federation jury as sentient, therefore by taking away his new child they were violating his rights as a sentient being by the Federations "human rights" which apply to all sentients (not just humans as the name implies).
And since he was a snot, and ended up causing the death of the android, and was fighting Picard, he was the villan.

Kinda agree. Then again, he was kind of right. Earth was vulnerable and he showed just how vulnerable in a pseudo coup.

But again, he was the villan of the episode.

Admiral Necheyev IIRC. She told Picard off in "Descent" part one, for not taking advantage over the Borg vulnerability to at least trial a WMD against them. Forgetting for the moment the weird neature of this WMD, the fact remains Picard could have and SHOULD have authorised it. Those that opposed it - Crusher, LaForge - should have been relieved of duties. Neither one of them had the moral high ground - how many people died at Wolf 359? How many engineers lost their lives when the Borg used their cutting laser on the E-D's stardrive section? How many people did Crusher have to stitch back together, or zip up the body bags of?

One of the occasions she told him off, yes. She also was a snot to Sisko in DS9. In EVERY APPEARANCE, she ordered Picard or Sisko to do something they didn't want to do.

A treaty which allowed the Romulans to gain a supreme tactical advantage over their Federation opponents, and to do so with virtual impunity in a pre-emptive war (the Romulan attacks on the Narendra 3 and Khitomer outposts belonging to the Klingons were surprise attacks and vicous - what if those had been Federation colonies?).

He still was arrested, and Picard fought him and relieved him of command. That makes him the villan.

To create a 'youth drug' or something, which of course violated the non-interference directive. So billions of people will have to make do and grow old, while a couple hundred country yokels get to live forever in their selfish existence. Sounds like he was trying to do the right thing to me.

In this case, he was doing the right thing, but Picard was against him, so he's a villan



OH! One more example. One Starfleet Admiral that new Sisko defected to the Maquis, betrayed the Federation, and organized a strike on the Cardies. Then he had to fight Sisko in ship to ship combat, as the villan.

Praxis wrote:To create a 'youth drug' or something, which of course violated the non-interference directive. So billions of people will have to make do and grow old, while a couple hundred country yokels get to live forever in their selfish existence. Sounds like he was trying to do the right thing to me.

In this case, he was doing the right thing, but Picard was against him, so he's a villan

Gets a villian's death and everything.
Too bad really, if it were up to me I would've put that self serving mutinous dog Picard in the super skin strecher chair.

OH! One more example. One Starfleet Admiral that new Sisko defected to the Maquis, betrayed the Federation, and organized a strike on the Cardies. Then he had to fight Sisko in ship to ship combat, as the villan.

Who, Hudson? He was a Commander IIRC.

I thought that he outranked Sisko? You sure he was a commander?

Praxis wrote:I thought that he outranked Sisko? You sure he was a commander?

Well I'm fairly sure he wasn't an Admiral at least, I think he was the same rank as Sisko. I recall them joking about it and wondering who would make Admiral first, or something like that.

Rogue 9 wrote:

Good idea. The Romulans and Cardassians were effectively 'declaring war' on the Dominion with their pre-emptive strike. The Dominion, in turn, would declare war on those powers - long time adversaries to the Federation - and leave Starfleet alone.

Except that they'd have to use the wormhole, in Federation territory, to launch their attacks. Do you really think they'd leave DS9 alone?

1. The Wormhole isn't Federation territory.
2. The Dominion did PRECISELY what I said in the canon episodes - went through the wormhole and left DS9 alone, and then went to Cardassia.

So yes, they would have to use a wormhole - which isn't federation territory - and they would leave the Federation alone if it's clear they weren't complicit in the attack.

Good point- at the time, Bajor had not yet been accepted with their membership into the Federation. Therefore, while Deep Space Nine was run by the Federation and Bajor was under Federation protection as an APPLICANT, the sector was not Federation territory, so the Dominion can pass through it.

Thematically, the flag officers of Starfleet are frequently foils for the captains of Star Trek. There is, however, a difference between being a foil or antagonist and being a villain. VADM Nechayev, for example, is a foil for CAPT Picard in "Descent", but Lore and his rogue Borg are the villains.

As a more pertinent example, FADM Morrow is a foil in The Search for Spock; FADM Cartwright is a villain in The Undiscovered Country. Of the characters you mentioned, VADM Dougherty in "Resurrection" and VADM Leyton in "Home Front" and "Paradise Lost" are definitely villains (albeit villains with good intentions), while the remainder are mostly foils and antagonists (with such characters as RADM Jameson from "Too Short a Season" straddling the line).

Of course it is important to point out that the captains are responsible for tactical details of immediate concern. They are first and foremost concerned with their ships, crews, and missions, and are free to advocate a bewildering array of policy options, relatively freed as they are from responsibility for the aftermath. A captain of a starship sees only a very small part of the big picture.

Admirals, on the other hand, have vastly increased responsibilities, including administration, strategic operations, and even policy -- an admiral has much more to be concerned with than the fate of one ship or one planet. It is easy to criticize an admiral for opposing this idea or that, but one must also consider what other responsibilities the admiral has, and what other information he or she might have.

PUBLIUS

Publius wrote:*snip*

PUBLIUS

Jesus, I wish you would post more often, that was pretty insightful...