[Rasselas]

Ha! I hope you were not thinking the Admirals in the game or in this fleet! Shame on you if you were.

I have been revisiting TNG, DS9, and Enterprise(the best) and all the movies. I'm puzzled. A majority of episodes involve either incompetent or corrupt Admirals. How did they get to this lofty position with such corruptable morals or a great absence of common sense? Then I remember that history in real life is repleat with such men and wonder if this was purposeful on the writer's part or if it is just coincidence, or if I need to just have some Earl Grey and relax.

Thoughts?


Rass

[Thomas Mullaly]

Even in the military, we have some senior officers (equivalent to Commanders and Captains) who are pretty messed up, and leave us wondering how they got there. In the end the best theories that my friends and I have come up with is that they were promoted out of their units so they would become someone else's problem!

[Christopher Halsey]

If you think about what many of them have done to get to those positions then it probably does change your perspective on things.

In Star Trek those Admirals that are found to break the rules always do so because they believe what they are doing is for the greater good.

Admiral Leyton from DS9 for example didn't see his action as a coup. He saw that Starfleet wasn't being given the support it needed to defend Earth from The Dominion and that the Federation President didn't appreciate the threat. So he acted to demonstrate just how real a threat was posed and to give Starfleet the power it needed to defend the planet. Whilst his actions weren't deemed correct he was acting to protect Federation citizens from a very real and dangerous threat which is one of the primary duties of a Starfleet officer, its a sort of ends justify the means thing really, ethics to an extent are arbitary.

Similar with Admiral Pressman and the Federation cloaking device in TNG. Pressman was involved in creating and testing illegal technology as part of the Federation/Romulan treaty which prevented the Federation from developing cloaking technology. He broke the rules but given the secrative nature of the work I think one could conclude that there was a very good chance that if succesfully created the technology would not just come in to normal use (since the Federation Council and Starfleet would be unlikely to support it since it was in breach of the treaty) instead it would be kept in reserve should the Romulans ever start a war in which case the Federation would be justified in developing and using cloaking technology. Pressman therefore simply developed a contingency designed to level the playing field should the Romulans ever start a war. Again his actions were wrong and his actions could have started the conflict he wanted to avoid but his actions were taken to protect the Federation from a hostile adverssary.

With Admiral Dougherty in Insurrection it is still similar. Insurrection takes place during the Dominion War around the same point of time when the Romulans are brought in to the war. At that point the war was not going well for the Federation. Dougherty found a way of not only increasing the lifespan and health of Federation citizens but being able to quickly heal and increase the physical condition of those afflicted with health issues or wounds. The cost was moving 600 people who weren't natives to that area anyway. Again what he did wasn't right but actually if you balance 600 people against billions as with the others I think you could argue that maybe he wasn't that wrong, you could argue that screwing over the Baku wasn't very nice but ethically, moving 600 people against the medical care and quality of life of hundreds of civilisations? Also bare in mind that he was apparently acting on orders from the Federation Council and being the highest authority if they not only said it was ok but ordered him I think you could argue that it wasn't as black and white about just being wrong.

I think when you look in to why the Admirals do what they do and what their intentions are it is never as black and white as just being right or wrong.

Try this as an example, when Sisko brings the Romulans in to the war, he is willing to deceive the Romulans in to a conflict that will cost them millions of lives to help give the Federation a chance, how is that any worse than what any of the above Admirals did? I think it isn't I think the only difference is that Sisko pulled it off successfully where in all of the other cases someone decided it was wrong and threw a spanner in the works. This is one of the reasons I really liked DS9, it isn't so black and white with right and wrong as the majority of Star Trek.

How much are principles and high minded ideals worth?

[Demitri Night]

Well said Chris.

[Rasselas]

Very good arguments and thoroughly thought out. I wish I could become a Starfleet Admiral and then go rogue! LOL

[Silynn]

Hard to argue against Chris as his examples are well put.

Power can corrupt and though one may try to justify that their ends justifies their means, I'm sure there will always be someone who can argue that. Certainly, as Chris eloquently stated, the world of Starfleet Admiralty is not black or white.

In reading a few of the books, "A Time to..." and the 1st book of the "Titan" series, I have noticed that Admirals do hold vendettas. And heaven help you (or another Admiral) if you are the target of one of those vendettas. Captain Picard is one of the most renown ship captains, but he had almost as many powerful enemies as allies in the Admiralty. To me, it seemed he was often fighting some Admiral's political maneuvers with one hand while trying to resolve some crisis with the other. Not really sure how he did it, but that fact really elevated his 'status' in my eyes.

Now, how Janeway was made an Admiral... I'll never understand, and that is likely a whole another topic.

[Christopher Halsey]

In reading a few of the books, "A Time to..." and the 1st book of the "Titan" series, I have noticed that Admirals do hold vendettas. And heaven help you (or another Admiral) if you are the target of one of those vendettas. Captain Picard is one of the most renown ship captains, but he had almost as many powerful enemies as allies in the Admiralty. To me, it seemed he was often fighting some Admiral's political maneuvers with one hand while trying to resolve some crisis with the other. Not really sure how he did it, but that fact really elevated his 'status' in my eyes.

Starfleet Captains have to often make quick decisions. For an Admiral it can be quite difficult to manage things, most Admirals are distanced somewhat from what is going on (either by involvement or actual distance), they are trying to manage situations remotely, situations that can change extremely quickly. If you look at someone like Kirk or Archer they are very impulsive and sometimes come across as quite rash yet they are in a position where their actions could plunge you in to a war or destroy years of diplomatic work. Can you imagine being the boss of someone like that? I can't say it is too surprising that Admiral's have a bad side that you want to avoid given the nature of their role and when you think about it there have to be as many if not more bad assignments than good ones, someone has to be given the rubbish jobs much better to stick someone who isn't very good or is too much of a liability there and keep your most trusted assets on the frontlines.

Taking the UFP as an example all of us in SFC have personal opinions although we always try to think purely on a professional basis I don't think anyone could honnestly say personal opinion can't slip in to something. We often make recommendations or decisions on who ends up in what position, now the fact that we come to these decisions as a collective group is something of a safeguard against one person enforcing their personal beliefs rather than their professional behaviour but when choosing between people going for a job you might have thoughts like "this guy is a bit of a loose canon I don't think I could risk putting him in X job".

Now we are just dealing with a community of a few hundred imagine being responsible for the protection of a union of planets involving billions of individuals and surely you need to magnify that.

Ultimately an Admiral outranks a Captain so if you have a Captain that doesn't follow orders or takes what you deem are unjustified risks then its quite understandable that this sort of thing happens. With Picard if you look at it from an Admiral's viewpoint he has lost two starships (the Stargazer and the Enterprise D), was assimilated by the Borg, as a member of the Borg was instrumental in the near assimilation of the Federation and has been in countless traumas that would break a lesser man, now as the person that tells him what to do could you honnestly say that you wouldn't have doubts as to whether his next assignment is going to be the one where he finally cracks at a critical moment? He has also dis-obeyed orders and broken the Prime Directive on numerous occasions. I think it is slightly understandable when his superiors sometimes have their doubts.

Now, how Janeway was made an Admiral... I'll never understand, and that is likely a whole another topic.

Well they gave her a ship and she managed to get it lost for best part of a decade. Much harder to lose an office.

[deuZige]

I must agree with Syllin. I think it's the old saying "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is the most obvious and most probable candidate for the turning bad of admirals or others in high power positions. Admirals are by nature very ambitious people. Ambitious people get more ambitious the more successfull they are. And when they reach the highest position they can reach they panic. They don't have any higher goals to set for themselves. Like the saying goes: "And Alexander wept.... because there were no more worlds to conquer". Ambitious people without the option of striving for more still keep looking for that way "up" and that's when they're susceptible for the morally questionable higher goals.

Ofcourse some have been and allways will be #$$holes but they usually seem to stay within the acceptable catagories and get their kicks by reminding others of the power they have....

And there's the question of how to define good and evil. What morals are high morals and which are the despicable ones? Who decides that?

[Christopher Halsey]

Oh and lets not just pick on the Admirals. Garth, Ransom, Maxwell, Tracey, Hudson, plenty of command officers in the field that caused problems.

[tomroseuk]

Try this as an example, when Sisko brings the Romulans in to the war, he is willing to deceive the Romulans in to a conflict that will cost them millions of lives to help give the Federation a chance, how is that any worse than what any of the above Admirals did? I think it isn't I think the only difference is that Sisko pulled it off successfully where in all of the other cases someone decided it was wrong and threw a spanner in the works. This is one of the reasons I really liked DS9, it isn't so black and white with right and wrong as the majority of Star Trek.

How much are principles and high minded ideals worth?

This is one of my all time favourite Star Trek episodes. The internal debate and doubt over extreme actions and whether the ends justify the means. I believe in most situations it doesn't, the incident in Insurrection I think also highlights this.

Yes there was an argument over 600 vs billions is compelling but to argue that the ethics of it allow it to happen doesn't hold water. Yes it may serve the greater good but what about the 600? Is it ethical to move them at all. Ethical theories also state right and wrong can remain firm regardless of situation.

Obviously there is a need to be realistic, yet it actions in the harder times that define people society rather then the easy ones. Again in Star Trek, when things were 'going well' the prime directive was all but when it got tough then they were willing to go against principles to obtain a reversal of fortune.

Starfleet Captains have to often make quick decisions. For an Admiral it can be quite difficult to manage things, most Admirals are distanced somewhat from what is going on (either by involvement or actual distance), they are trying to manage situations remotely, situations that can change extremely quickly. If you look at someone like Kirk or Archer they are very impulsive and sometimes come across as quite rash yet they are in a position where their actions could plunge you in to a war or destroy years of diplomatic work. Can you imagine being the boss of someone like that? I can't say it is too surprising that Admiral's have a bad side that you want to avoid given the nature of their role and when you think about it there have to be as many if not more bad assignments than good ones, someone has to be given the rubbish jobs much better to stick someone who isn't very good or is too much of a liability there and keep your most trusted assets on the frontlines.

There's that saying - promoted to their level of competence! I think it should also be noted that a lot of commanders are promoted into command positions precisely because of their ability to make fast decisions based on the information at hand. It's always ways to make decisions in hindsight but a starship commander would need to make fast decisions with little to go on or backup .A point made several times in Star Trek I think.

[Rasselas]

All these arguments are valid and are the main reason that Enterprise stands alone in the best of shows; TOS excluded. Archer did not have a Prime Directive, A Federation of Planets(he was the first president) and had to complete his mission and keep his crew safe without starting a war. He didn't have the luxury of years of trial and error written down and available for review, like Picard, Janeway or the others. He wrote the book and in doing so, did a fine job.

[flaksim]

He also didnt have a serious fleet backing him incase things DID go wrong. (And they always did...)

[Rasselas]

I'm not totally convinced that they would be promoted to become the problem of someone else. I do wonder if each admiral is assigned a quadrant, or sector and if so, to whom do they report and how often? I would think that they would have some sort of committee or meetings to confer, gain insight, opinions and guidance from the "joint chiefs" or whatever its equivalent. Considering the federation is not a dictatorship and in using current world politics and governmental structure, no admiral would ever be in a position to act alone on significant matters.

Arguments or agreements?

Rasselas

[Kyuusaku]

I think you can't extrapolate current world politics over a fictional galactic political structure. I liken it more to the admirals and generals operating in a pre-radio era, when messages from national command authorities are delayed in response to specific matters. Back when orders were more general than specific and trust was placed in the hands of those command officers who executed their missions with a fair amount of latitude.

In short, today's climate has presidents and prime ministers in real-time contact with ship commanders. A subspace radio delay, on the other hand, puts them out of real-time contact. So, you have to have trust in the guy in the center seat, or the admiral who is acting as the flag authority for that region of space... kind of like the port admiral running a fleet out of a Caribbean island.

Kyuu