Archer as Captain

[aadarshinah]

<devil's advocate warning >

We got to see Archer in that horrid dress-jumpsuit in The Abomination.... So unless they were going for We're-signing-a-charter-dedicated-to-peace-so-don't-wear-your-war-medals theme....

[WarpGirl]

You don't always get medals for war. There are diplomatic "awards" or "medals." And considering that Archer did manage to get humans an alliance with the Andorians (although Trip stopped a full scale war) I'm shocked they never showed any commendations. Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, they all had them. And they were Starfleet commendations, not Federation commendations.

[aadarshinah]

Okay, regardless of the type or reason or rhyme or whatnot, there were no medals. Or promotions. Or, for that matter, decent dress uniforms.

[WarpGirl]

So true. <sigh> After TOS there was no thought for fashion in Trek.

But still, even I can admit Archer deserved some credit for the Andorians. It's not easy to convince a "Paranoid, volitile, race" (green for Vulcan) to be allies just on the context of screwing the Vulcans and being a great drinking buddy.

Not that the Vulcans were right, but technically Archer screwed them with T'Pol's help at P'Jem.

[enterprikayak]

I've always thought the fashion more than a bit weird on all the trex. It is sort of part of the charm for me.

TOS: Pyjamas with calf length flares and miniskirts for the chicks
TNG: Sweatshirt for men of stature, spandex for all females and all other men, except when the other men got to wear miniskirts
DS9: Sweatshirt Sweater Set
VOY: Sweatshirt Sweater Set (unless you were borg: then, skin tight hot mama catsuit)
ENT: Grease Monkey Coveralls For Everyone (unless you were vulcan: then, skin tight hot mama catsuit)

[aadarshinah]

I personally thought the later movie/end seasons DS9 uniforms were the best, though ENT's were at least practical.... Every time recently when I've watched the nuTrek movie I find myself wondering where they put the rank stripes on the short-sleeved women's uniforms.

But I bet you have to be a pretty great drinking buddy to do that. Should we add that to Archer's sentance - that he can apparently hold his liquor? Or maybe Enterprise is like Las Vegas... you know, what happens there, stays there

[WarpGirl]

The 60's was all Glam but then it got boring. ENT did have more color, I'll give it that.

But I bet you have to be a pretty great drinking buddy to do that. Should we add that to Archer's sentance - that he can apparently hold his liquor? Or maybe Enterprise is like Las Vegas... you know, what happens there, stays there

At the risk of sounding totally boring I think he's just a good drinker.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

[WarpGirl]

Dude I'm trying to get back on the road. Archer should have gotten a diplomatic commendation because he bagged an Andorian alliance by being a good drinker, and was more than willing to screw the Vulcans!

[Rigil Kent]

But they were taught War. Starfleet wasn't. And that's the point. Archer is unqualified. Even Malcolm says so. It's not so implausible to set up a joint operation. In fact it would have made more sense for Hayes to be Archer's 2IC than T'Pol. She still could have gone along.

Exactly! I'm demoting the person with the most experience in space travelling, diplomacy and science on a space ship, because there's a high decorated graduate from West Point, who probably has never left the Sol system. *No Ma'ma*

Yeah. As somebody on these boards whose actually been shot at in a combat situation and shot at someone in that same situation, I'd much rather go into the field with somebody whose been in the mud than somebody who has just studied war. No amount of training - none - is going to fully prepare you for combat unless that training is frankly indistinguishable from the real thing, and everything we saw of the MACOs strongly implied to me that they didn't have a clue what they were doing. Yes, I get that the producers wanted to portray them as the equivalent of SEAL Team Six or Delta Force, but truthfully, a well-trained Boy Scout unit would eat those guys for lunch and "Hatchery" made it pretty clear that they were babes in the woods. What was the point of Hayes' "they never taught us this sort of thing at West Point" remarks if not to show that the MACOs were not all sorts of ate up? I tend to side with the thought that the MACOs were effectively a SWAT team for Earth, perhaps sent out to assist in anti-pirate operations or to defend border colonies. They certainly weren't any better with tactics or training than your average security redshirt. If it came down to it, I'd certainly trust T'Pol (as screwed up as she was) over Hayes any day of the week.

As to Hayes' position in the chain-of-command, why is this even an issue? I'm pretty sure we've flogged this horse to death, but Starfleet makes no sense whatsoever when it comes to who is in charge - case in point: T'Pol, especially season 3 T'Pol - so arguing about Hayes' authority (or lack thereof) aboard ENT doesn't really make sense. No Trek series has made much sense when it comes to chain-of-command - hell, in the nuTrek movie, Kirk goes from 3 year cadet, to XO, to captain in a few hours, and is inexplicably promoted to full on captain by the end of the movie!

Having only skimmed this thread, I must admit to being weary of seeing Archer's faults listed over and over again, particularly since it seems to me that, if you compare him with his immediate predecessor in terms of franchise commanders, he's frankly no better and no worse than Insaneway. Again, you need to take into account the fact that the people writing the show truly had no idea what a real combat leader is like. You want to see an officer with boatloads of gravitas, authority, and leadership? Watch "Band of Brother" and pay attention to Dick Winters. Now that was a man people would die for. Archer ... he was just like Janeway, in that we were told he was this awesome officer whereas everything we actually saw implied otherwise.

[WarpGirl]

Exactly! I'm demoting the person with the most experience in space travelling, diplomacy and science on a space ship, because there's a high decorated graduate from West Point, who probably has never left the Sol system. *No Ma'ma*

Yeah. As somebody on these boards whose actually been shot at in a combat situation and shot at someone in that same situation, I'd much rather go into the field with somebody whose been in the mud than somebody who has just studied war. No amount of training - none - is going to fully prepare you for combat unless that training is frankly indistinguishable from the real thing, and everything we saw of the MACOs strongly implied to me that they didn't have a clue what they were doing. Yes, I get that the producers wanted to portray them as the equivalent of SEAL Team Six or Delta Force, but truthfully, a well-trained Boy Scout unit would eat those guys for lunch and "Hatchery" made it pretty clear that they were babes in the woods. What was the point of Hayes' "they never taught us this sort of thing at West Point" remarks if not to show that the MACOs were not all sorts of ate up? I tend to side with the thought that the MACOs were effectively a SWAT team for Earth, perhaps sent out to assist in anti-pirate operations or to defend border colonies. They certainly weren't any better with tactics or training than your average security redshirt. If it came down to it, I'd certainly trust T'Pol (as screwed up as she was) over Hayes any day of the week.

I can understand this, but the thing is nobody in this era of the ST universe would have the kind of comabt experience. It simply doesn't exist. Therefore the only people whom it would be reasonable to trust would be the people who study and train for combat and T'Pol because Vulcans still have war with their neighbors, and she was a full-fleged member of their military, even if she hadn't been in active combat. (I'm not sure if she ever had or not but it's 1:30am) But Starfleet Officers appearently weren't even trained in study and sims... Knowledge is power.

[Rigil Kent]

No offense, but I'm going to go with my actual experience over that sort of theoretical. When I was active duty, we very quickly learned that the new officers who had just spent four plus years "studying" and "training" for combat at West Point were abject morons and, more often than not, more dangerous in the field than you can possibly imagine. Because they spent all that time gaining the book learning regarding war, they developed an almost hidebound mindset wherein they panicked or overreacted the very second their plan blew up in their faces because, as Murphy puts it, "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy." Watch "Aliens" and observe how the highly trained lieutenant freezes up when things go south. That's what you get when you have a highly trained officer who doesn't know what he's actually doing. Stick with the guys who have been there, done that. In this case, that would be Reed & his security guys. Who, by this point, have been there doing it for over two years, whereas Hayes & Co. have been "training." Training never trumps experience.

Again, the entire point of "Hatchery" was to show that Hayes and his MACOs didn't know what they were doing out there in the black, and had difficulty adapting. Which is why I maintain it would be utter suicide to put the MACOs in a position of actual authority. Hell, they couldn't even conduct an effective repel boarders situation (as we saw very clearly in "Rajiin.")

[WarpGirl]

I don't disagree with you Rigil... But in the context of the ST universe at the time where are you going to find experienced combat soldiers? You aren't going to find them on earth, or in SF because they don't exist. So while it would have been wonderful to write the MACO's as experienced combat tested soldiers, it was impossible.

But how is it any better to send a ship with less than 100 people into a war zone with nobody having the first clue of how war works inellectually? How is it any better to have personel who have never even been in simulated combat making all the choices? I'm just saying it could be the lesser of two evils.

Besides you said it yourself... TPTB have never written a remotely realistic miltary or combat situation in Trek. I don't know anything about the dominion war so I won't be able to draw any conclusions from it.

[Misplaced]

No offense, but I'm going to go with my actual experience over that sort of theoretical. When I was active duty, we very quickly learned that the new officers who had just spent four plus years "studying" and "training" for combat at West Point were abject morons and, more often than not, more dangerous in the field than you can possibly imagine. Because they spent all that time gaining the book learning regarding war, they developed an almost hidebound mindset wherein they panicked or overreacted the very second their plan blew up in their faces because, as Murphy puts it, "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy." Watch "Aliens" and observe how the highly trained lieutenant freezes up when things go south. That's what you get when you have a highly trained officer who doesn't know what he's actually doing. Stick with the guys who have been there, done that. In this case, that would be Reed & his security guys. Who, by this point, have been there doing it for over two years, whereas Hayes & Co. have been "training." Training never trumps experience.

It's interesting... but it's stuff like this that I didn't understand until my husband joined the Army. I agree with you 100%, Rigel. It's probably why I enjoy your Endeavor series and Transwarp's version of the Romulan war. You both have the experience that speaks reality to me as a military wife (and sister and sister-in-law).

I also agree that we were told Archer was a great leader, even having T'Pol inexplicably follow him to the ends of the earth (non-romantically of course)... but the truth is... At least with the writing (and I'm gonna say it -- SB's acting too at times) it just wasn't there. The few times that Trip had to be acting captain (especially during the Vulcan Arc)... even though he had a sort of "whoo boy, I hope this zany plan of mine works" vulnerability to him, he was more real than Archer was most of the time. (There are some really great Archer moments in the show, so I'm not saying it was all bad -- heck, I like Archer.)

I think with good leaders there is a loyalty to your "men" and you need to have some charisma. Something inside of you needs to make people want to follow you to the ends of the earth. Now, I have no problem with Archer being flawed. Honestly, I think that could have been interesting if the writers had admitted to themselves he was flawed and allowed him and the crew to come to terms with that. The closest we got, IMO, to anything like that was season 3 Dark!Archer. It wasn't the Trek norm, but he was more real than in the 4th season being Super!Archer.

I love the optimism of Trek. But at the same time, I really do think it's possible to have the characters deal with deep internal conflict without losing that brightness overall. Seems to me Trip and T'Pol were given those opportunities to deal with some deep personal guck -- and maybe that's what makes these characters the most compelling. Archer got the short end of the stick there. It felt like a lot of the times the writers were too busy trying to make sure Archer looked good.

And that is my two cents on the matter. Personal opinions all the way.

[Rigil Kent]

Me, I've always assumed that the writers were just not quite able to figure out what they wanted Archer to be. I mean, you can mostly paint all of the other captains with that sole sentence, but Archer ... he was inconsistent thanks to the writing. If they had did a better job at identifying what made Archer Archer, then it wouldn't have seemed so weird.

And I didn't know your hubbie joined the Army. Hoo-ah!

I don't disagree with you Rigil... But in the context of the ST universe at the time where are you going to find experienced combat soldiers? You aren't going to find them on earth, or in SF because they don't exist. So while it would have been wonderful to write the MACO's as experienced combat tested soldiers, it was impossible.

And yet, you were the one who suggested they make Hayes the XO, were you not? Does it make any sense to put a green officer into the role of 2IC in a situation as dire as this one? T'Pol was a know quantity, one that had earned the respect of the ENT crew, so displacing her (and, for that matter, Tucker, who also outranks Hayes, or Reed, who is the security officer) to put a gropo with questionable space legs in the XO position would be certain doom.

But how is it any better to send a ship with less than 100 people into a war zone with nobody having the first clue of how war works inellectually? How is it any better to have personel who have never even been in simulated combat making all the choices? I'm just saying it could be the lesser of two evils.

And I'm contesting your assertion. Combat is a fluid thing. It very rarely conforms to what the initial battle plan calls for, and since this is still first and foremost a Starfleet operation, it defies logic to put MACOs in such a position of high authority, particularly since, as you've pointed out, they have no experience out there in the black. If history has taught us one thing, its that those with the experience will more often than not defeat those who simply have the knowledge. Yes, knowledge is a wonderful thing, but too much of it in the wrong areas is dangerous, especially when experience is lacking.

As to them sending >100 people into a war zone, well ... it's Trek where most potential wars can be solved by a little lovin' (Kirk), a boring meeting and lecture (Picard), some gruff, intimidating glowers (Sisko), something insane (Janeway), or a speech about gazelles (Archer.)

I don't know anything about the dominion war so I won't be able to draw any conclusions from it.

It's closer than anything else Trek did, but it still has some serious flaws and patently dumb actions in it.