Archer as Captain

[aadarshinah]

All excellent points Thot...

Thinking on it myself, and Archer's actions in season 3 in particular, I almost want to say Archer's sentence would be something along the lines of the captain isolated by his position who will do most anything to accomplish his goal. His goals are flexible (save Earth fromt he Xindi, explore, save various crewmen, etc) but the motivation of the ends justify the means seems to be consistant, and if rules need to be broken, aliens tortured, or orders ignored, so be it. In a way, it makes him the captain with the least sense of moral integrity, and, in a more established Federation, he'd probably never have risen to captain. But he has that inherient stick-to-it-ness nessicary for "frontier" operations such as the first warp 5 ship...

[honeybee]

He takes T'Pol's advice about taking some time off, eventually going to to Risa in Two Days and Two Nights.

Everyone eventually convinces him to suck it up and apologize in ANIS - and he apologizes to both T'Pol and Phlox at the end for being such an ass. But it does pretty much take more than one person to talk him into it. I think its finally Phlox that does it. I do like the Trip scene where he tells Archer to apologize.

He also listens to Phlox about the borg - and not being able to save the research team - in Regeneration. I think Archer does listen to his people, but its usually during plot driven moments or subtle moments - exposition kinds of scenes. It's absolutely true that he mostly does his own thing when faced with big moral choices.

At least, as you point out aadarshinah, he eventually starts to become isolated from his crew when the difficult choices start piling up.

[Silverbullet]

Thot there were times when the crew and Enterprise were threatened that Archer was good like in Chosen Realm. For sheer stupidity and endangering the crew, "Bound" was the worst case. Bringing those Orion women on board wasn't that bad but after finding out how they were affecting his crew he should have had them confined to quarters and female guards put outside of them. He didn't. That led to what hapened with Kelby. Had not Trip and T'Pol been able to send that burst up the Cable to disalbe the Orion ship and dislodge the cable the Enterprise would have been towed to the waiting Mauraders. The crew taken captive and sold in to slavery and the Enterprise in the Hands of the Orion Mauraders.

In daedelus Archer was directly responsible for the crewmans death because he allowed the unauthorized experiments to take place. But the Entrprise itself ws in no danger.

In Terra Prime Archer did well he stopped Paxton (along with Reed, mayweather and Trip.)

I still aplaud his decision in Damage. The Earth and eight billion people were at stake and it was no time for ethical thinking he had to put those aside and he did.

What gets me was that Trip got chewed out for what he did but Archer interferred too. In NOrth Star he saw injustice and interferred, also incivilization. but he didn't get chewed out. Neither when he helped those Suliban prisoners to escape. Moraly he wwas right but I belive so was Trip

Archer was writtn very unevenly. It must have driven Bakkula nuts. Of course I suppose it could be said of all the characters and the actors who played the roles.

I never thought I would be defending Archer but the longer the thread the more I find to defend.

[aadarshinah]

those Orion women on board wasn't that bad but after finding out how they were affecting his crew he should have had them confined to quarters and female guards put outside of them. He didn't. That led to what hapened with Kelby.

The women were effected too - headaches and all of that. And I imagine that the first thing to go when Orion phremones start effecting you is your sense of judgement. Or at least self-determination. Archer was in no more of a position to realize he was behaving inanly than Kelby or the others.

I still aplaud his decision in Damage. The Earth and eight billion people were at stake and it was no time for ethical thinking he had to put those aside and he did.

Being of the opinion that the ends never justify the means, I'll have to disagree with you there, SB.

As for the rest, I'm inclined to think that Archer lacked a certain moral compass... If you take his actions in "Damages" say and compare it to Sisko in "In The Pale Moonlight", Sisko at least felt guilt for his actions, which he realized were not ideal but nessicary. Archer just... well, idk what you would call it, but definatly didn't seem to loose much sleep over it.

[WarpGirl]

The women were effected too - headaches and all of that. And I imagine that the first thing to go when Orion phremones start effecting you is your sense of judgement. Or at least self-determination. Archer was in no more of a position to realize he was behaving inanly than Kelby or the others.

Being of the opinion that the ends never justify the means, I'll have to disagree with you there, SB.

As for the rest, I'm inclined to think that Archer lacked a certain moral compass... If you take his actions in "Damages" say and compare it to Sisko in "In The Pale Moonlight", Sisko at least felt guilt for his actions, which he realized were not ideal but nessicary. Archer just... well, idk what you would call it, but definatly didn't seem to loose much sleep over it.

Agreed! I mean they kind of dealt with it in Home but not really. His nightmare wasn't about the atrocities he did, but of a Xindi Reptillian throwing him off a cliff. If he had been having nightmares about his actions I'd feel bad for him. But he didn't. And he never felt any remorse, he was defensive, he was angry, but no remorse whatsoever. But this was the same way he dealt with the events in Cogenitor... I'm sorry I feel no empathy for Archer's emotions in Home. I do understand he had heavy burdens, I'll accept the fact he had to make hard choices. But I don't respect how he viewed those choices.

[honeybee]

I'm going to disagree with you there aadarshinah. I got the impression that Archer was going to swallow that guilt so hard - stuff it down with all the other ugly things he did in the Expanse - from the torture of that guy in the airlock, to the creation of Sim to the stealing of the Warp Coil - he's definitely going to suppress his guilt - but I always got the impression that if he let himself think too much about it - he wouldn't be able to move forward.

But, I can see where people would see him as cold. He is cold.

[aadarshinah]

But, I can see where people would see him as cold. He is cold.

Cold... maybe not the word I would use. Distant, maybe, or repressed. He, in other episodes, does show empathy, but, when it comes to things directly related to The Mission, he doesn't seem to excerise - or allow himself to excerise - that empathy. This may be a decent thing for a captain in a combat situation to have, but he takes it a step too far.

[Aquarius]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say Archer's lacking a moral compass. His priority, his mission, was to save Earth. How to put this...soldiers who see combat, it screws most of them up, sure, especially if they're personally responsible for killing or harming someone in the name of that war...but, it's like in order to cope and not go completely crazy, they have to shut it off. Just like how doctors and nurses have to shut off their revulsion to lots of gross stuff in order to get the job done, or psychologists/social workers in dealing with some other people's pretty horrible problems. Ask any soldier who's seen combat. They'll tell you that they can't be judged/measured the same way the rest of us are. People in the psychiatric profession are likely to agree.

[honeybee]

Today in my classes - we were reading a combat piece about the Iraq war - and all the mental trauma.

It's funny, it reminded me of Hatchery. The officer who orders his men to shoot - and it turns out to be civilians - has to suck that up. But he practically jumps in front of a gun to prevent his man from shooting some dogs for sport. He shouts "we don't shoot dogs".

So, I still think Archer sucks all the ugliness up, and it pops out here and there. As Aquarius said, combat has to be a "I'll think about that tomorrow situation."

[Aquarius]

And another thing too--you really can't tell another person how to cope or how to grieve. Granted, for the sake of a TV show and keeping it relatable to an audience, it should be portrayed as pretty consistent with most people who've had a similar experience. And in Archer's case, I think I can say it is pretty consistent with a soldier who's had to do some pretty crappy things at wartime, especially when you consider things like TV shows are time-compressed and they can't show you every little thing, they'll only (hopefully) show you the bits that serve the immediate story.

[WarpGirl]

I'm going to pull out my favorite "TV Military" Guys here. Jack O'Neill, John Shepperd...

These men did far worse things than Archer did, and they are pretty messed up in certain ways. But what I think makes these characters remarkable is that they never tried to convince themselves they did something morally justifiable. They acknowledge the fact that parts of them are indeed monsters, no better then the evil they destroy. And they don't look for redemption, or someone to tell them what they did was right.

There was this one episode of SG-A (I think it was called The Storm(?)) Where Shepperd killed dozens of men (over 60?) mostly with his bare hands and a knife. He showed no mercy, he killed men who didn't even know he was coming. It was as big a bloodbath as you can get on a family show. After its over he never tries to say "I did the right thing." But he does say he did what he had to do, and would do it again.

Same thing with Jack O'Neill whenever he did something truly atrocious he never said "It was right" he said "It had to be done."

The thing that makes Archer questionable to me is that he seems unable and unwilling to acknowledge the part of himself that is a monster. Even though he says he did wrong, he kept trying to find a way to make it right. Another thing that bothered me was that he had a habit of letting his anger control his decisions. When given a choice of options his rage won out every time. Even on his solo-mission to blow the weapon. I'm not saying he should not have been angry, but he didn't use his anger effectively.

[Silverbullet]

I think that Archr had his mora compass. He had amission and that was to sve eight billion people and his Planet. He fixed on that. He had to. The xindi were touugh and dangerous. they wanted to eradicate Earth and Humanity. So, Archer did whath he had to do regardless. I imagine he would have sacrificed Trip if it would have guarnteed the success of the mission. a good commander has to do those sort of things. They have to be cold blooded about it. This is why an Eisenhower can say 20 percent casualtiies is accpetable. That is more than a number for the troops but one to a commander who has a mission to invde and take a beachead which will lead to final victory. It is that final Victory that Eisenhower had to look at and it was the final result that Archer had to look at.

It may hve been written badly but that is the way it should have been shown.

[WarpGirl]

I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that saving earth is of paramount importance SB. Nor do I think anyone is saying that he always made poor choices, and should have been sobbing over it.

However, the problem I come up with is the fact that Archer would never accept the same reasoning if the shoes were on sombody else's feet. And I'm not sure what I should call that, normally I would say hypocrisy, but it's not the appropriate word. If anyone can find one let me know.

[Aquarius]

So...Archer can't believe that he did the right thing? That doing what he had to do to save the Earth from the Xindi was the right thing to do? You sorta lost me with your SG comparison. I only watched SG1 casually because it was alright but didn't hurt my feelings if I missed an episode...and SGA left me alternately bored an annoyed, unless it was a Connor episode, so I've seen even less of that show.

And all this presumes that the characters in these shows are accurately mimicing soldiers who've had to do ethically questionable things at wartime.

So I'm not sure what one show has to do with vilifying Archer in another?

[WarpGirl]

Well first I was actively trying to avoid doing any "villifying," second, I in no way said that he did not do what he had to do, and that saving earth wasn't right. What I am saying is that there is a major difference between having to make these choices and looking for moral superiority. And no, if Archer does think doing the things he did were morally right I would say he has no moral compass at all.

That said, I acknowledge that he does admit those actions are wrong. The fact that psychologically he wants to try and make them right is a big turn off.

As for this part...

And all this presumes that the characters in these shows are accurately mimicing soldiers who've had to do ethically questionable things at wartime.

In no way did I make any such claim... My exact words were "TV Military." And I don't consider Archer an accurate portrayal of a soldier who had to do ethically questionable things in wartime.