Fleet Admiral Cartwright was right

After re-watching the Star Trek Movies, all of Next Gen, and DS9 I have come to one conclusion, Fleet Admiral Cartwright was correct. Now before people get the pitch forks let me explain, I don’t agree that the Klingons would be trash, but as he said but I do agree with one thing he did say, “if we dismantle the fleet, we'd be defenceless before an aggressive species with a foothold on our territory,” And what happened they dismantled the military sections of the fleet, and kept only the exploration and scientific fleets active, “C in C: I'm sure that our exploration and scientific programs would be unaffected”. now to me that is criminal, we know for a fact that the federation still has aggressive species an almost all sides, the Romulans may not have been as active as the Klingons but they are still there, there was no official end to the Coalition Romulan war, the Gorn have shown themselves to be aggressive when provoked, the Tholians are also aggressive and technologically advanced enough to push the Federation hard, and let’s not forget the Ferengi.

With almost the complete loss of the military arm of Starfleet the Federation opened themselves up to attack, that one piece of idiocy for the end of Kirks Era would dictate the future of the Federation as a military and defensive entity.

The most apparent examples of this is the Cardassian border wars, and the Dominion war that followed it, where the former forced the federation to come to the negotiation table and the latter almost destroyed the Federation all together.

Now we don’t know allot about the Cardssian border war, but we do know about the Dominion war, and the Federation was curb stomped hard, that forced the Federation to rethink their military policy back to a time where they weren’t at peace where the enemies could strike them and destroy them at will.
So despite the Admiral being a bigot and a racist he was right in that one respect.

 

Cartwright's statement never made any sense and neither did the C-in-C's reply. Why would you dismantle your fleet when you still had the Romulans, Tholians and other aggressive species running around?

 

Especially since it was in response to disarming around the Klingon Neutral Zone since the cold war with the Klingons would be over not disarming the entire federation.

 

Maybe one of the terms that the Klingons (at least initially) demanded of the Federation was that Starfleet be dismantled.

During the dinner on board the Enterprise with Kirk and crew and the Klingon Chancellor and his party, Chang asked Kirk, "Tell me, Captain Kirk, would you be willing to give up Starfleet?"

In that context, the exchange between Cartwright and the CinC would have made some sense.

Also, it's possible that there were influential elements, peaceniks and the like, within the Federation that would have actually supported the dismantlement of the fleet. In that scene, Cartwright may merely have been voicing opposition to the terms demanded by the Klingons, as well as to those within the Fed that also might have wanted to mothball the fleet.

His words may not have been pc. Perhaps he could have phrased it more elegantly. Nevertheless one could say that he was right on that matter too, if you consider how unstable Klingon society had and will show itself to be -- civil wars, tribalism, and their obsession with the warrior culture and warfare.

 

I don't recall anybody suggesting dismantling the fleet. If anything with the launch of the Enterprise B they were building up a newer more powerful fleet. Of course a century later the Federation had plenty of time to prepare for both the Borg and the Dominion and failed to do so, but that's a different story.

 

Except for when they literally used those exact words or said something similar multiple times (see below).

That they may have renegotiated terms with the Klingons later to preserve the defensive arm of the fleet, or whether they simply beefed up the defensive capabilities of their exploratory and scientific ships is irrelevant to the fact that Cartwright and other high ranking officers were apparently (over)reacting based on the possibly erroneous assumption that the defensive arm of the fleet was going to be eliminated as a result of the treaty.

It wouldn't be the first time high ranking military officers, government officials, and politicians made rash decisions based on hyperbolic and reactionary preliminary readings of a chaotic political/military situation.

http://www.chakoteya.net/movies/movie6.html

 

I doubt it seeing as Klingons were the ones looked eminent doom in the eye and as such probably weren't in a position to be making demands like that. Plus Gorkon didn't seem to be a hardliner that would that kind of demand.

 

It is usually at the outset of negotiations that the boldest, most far fetched demands are presented to the other party.

Even if Gorkon was a so called moderate, he presumably would have to show the hardliners that he would not be a pushover in negotiations with the Fed. He presumably would have had to publically talk tough for the sake of not showing weakness to Klingon hardliners as well as to the Feds.

 

There's still nothing to suggest dismalting Starfleet, only space stations and starbases along the Neutral Zone, not taking the fleet apart. That was merely Cartright's paranoria at work and he was willing to start a war to prove his position.

 

Um... it is right there in the dialogue posted by Locutus.

 

Locutus expressed my interpretation of TUC, except for one nuance.

I'm not convinced that Cartwright seriously believed that Starfleet would be dismantled under any likely scenario. First of all, he interrupts the C in C before Bill can say what's going to happen. Cartwright's paranoid, but I think that he wants to make others afraid too, so he plays up the possibility of dismantling Starfleet. Rather than utterly dismantling the fleet as Cartwright suggests, I think it's far more likely that the Federation was simply considering scaling things back at least somewhat, but hadn't reached any kind of final decision about what to do. I think Cartwright's just hammering on the most extreme possibility, to stoke fears by insinuating that Federation will make the most ridiculously foolish decision and to provide a cover story for his treason. His propaganda there may have been responsible for some recruits to his cause. I think Cartwright's interruption of the C in C is a deft move so he can insert his propaganda into the proceedings and polarize things, instead of allowing the conversation to develop along more reasonable lines.

This goes for Chang all the more, when he's goading Kirk. Chang's trying to provoke him into doing something foolish.

 

That is a good interpretation.

 

A "BUT" doesn't tell you anything.

"I'm sure that our exploration and scientific programs would be unaffected, Captain, but we will likely disarm our side of the neutral zone, as suggested."

"I'm sure that our exploration and scientific programs would be unaffected, Captain, but with those always being our primary goal anyway, things will run considerably smoother without aggression from the Klingons."

"I'm sure that our exploration and scientific programs would be unaffected, Captain, but if you'll excuse me, I have a craving for frozen yogurt."

 

So you're saying he was Admiral Cart-right?

 

It's fine to agree with that statement, on its own merits.

Problem is, that statement is bullshit.

Spock mentioned "the dismantling of our space stations along the neutral zone." That is, the suspension of Starfleet's military program specifically oriented towards combating the Klingons. It's not ships they're talking about standing down, it's the thousands and thousands of troops and personnel stationed at those outposts whose ONLY job is to keep the Klingons from claiming the disputed planets they've been fighting the Federation over for decades (remember, the entire nature of the Klingon's conflict with the Federation is over a handful of border planets they both claimed and tried to colonize. They actually tried to fight it out once before the Organians stopped them.)

Now, presumably the Romulans are being nice now (their ambassador talks to the President) but they were bitter enemies only a couple of years earlier and, evidently, a couple of years later. There are also the Tholians, the Kzinti, the Orions, the Gorn, and semi-monthly visitations by giant planet-eating monsters to contend with. They aren't at peace with ANY of those races and probably never will be.

Cartwright knows good and damn well the fleet isn't going to be dismantled. In fact, he knows the FLEET isn't even the question at this point; "Are we talking about mothballing the Starfleet?" is a rhetorical question asked for dramatic effect. They're specifically talking about the Klingons withdrawing their claims on the disputed planets and working out a peaceful compromise with the Federation that would allow them to still utilize those worlds and their resources -- maybe under Federation oversight? -- and open them up to interstellar trade that they suddenly really badly need.

Or not. The Enterprise-B launched less than a year later; if anything, the fleet got BIGGER after the Khitomer Accords.

Have you considered the fact that the "scientific and exploration program" of Starfleet is probably the MAJORITY OF THE FLEET and that the conflict with the Klingons was really just a very expensive distraction centered on a half dozen contested planets? Since the Klingons no longer have the military might to back up their land claims, why would Starfleet continue to focus on them? They can finally start pulling all those old ships from service and replace/modernize them with newer and more powerful ones now that they don't have to contend with the possible Klingon Zerg Rush overrunning Sherman's Planet and the Archanis Sector any day now.

And a terrorist and a traitor. He's only "right" in the imaginary bullshit scenario he tosses on the table specifically to make a point. And just because nobody buys what he's selling, he hatches a plot that winds up getting a whole lot of people -- even his own people -- killed in a senseless crossfire.

I would take anything Cartwright has to say with a MASSIVE grain of salt.

 

Ayup.

Chang's approach to Kirk during the dinner illustrates the Klingon side of the same conspiracy. Talking about them both as "warriors" and the general's question about giving up Starfleet are both extensions of the conspirators' goal of painting a picture of paranoia and prejudice.

 

But it wasn't just Cartwright who suggested that dismantling the defensive fleet was a possibility. The unnamed "military aide" with the rank of captain suggested it before he did, and they were all in the dark about the situation before the briefing, so there was no chance of collusion on the message beforehand.

Plus, you can see Cartwright feeling out who his potential allies are during the briefing, so I don't think he already had a coherent disinformation strategy in place thirty seconds after being informed of the situation. Note the careful way he observes Kirk's objections to the plan. If Kirk hadn't been given the role of being the olive branch on the mission, Cartwright would probably have sought him out as an ally instead of framing him.

Also, no one corrects anyone who brings up the idea of mothballing the Starfleet, whether it be the unnamed aide, Cartwright, or Chang. Spock rarely misses an opportunity to correct someone, and he was present for all three remarks and said nothing to object. If it was complete propaganda with no possibility of ever happening (even if it was very unlikely), I doubt he would let that slide three times when it was undermining his diplomacy efforts.

It might have been a hyperbolic scenario that they would dismantle the defensive arm of Starfleet, but I do think some high ranking officers did genuinely believe it was a possibility, and other more moderate officers felt it was not so far-fetched that they should immediately put down such a notion as completely ridiculous and out of the realm of possibility.

Anyway, the main point of my post was simply to counter DWF's comment:

When that was like, verbatim what was said in the film. It's one thing to interpret it differently, but to pretend it was never even said...

 

And she was every bit as off-the-deep-end as he was for that ridiculous statement. It's a strawman, pure and simple.

It's not disinformation, it's just rhetoric. He's beating a jingoistic "Fuck the peace process and fuck the Klingons!" drum to see who else in the room is going to side with him as opposed to the more nuanced and far less reactionary "So we're going to be reallocating our resources in the absence of the threat in the Archanis Sector now and also there are going to be some political ramifications we should get together and talk about at a series of panel discussions over coffee and doughnuts next month."

Bill was starting to before Cartwright cut him off (which is probably WHY he cut him off).

OTOH, you realize that after seven years I have never heard any TV commentator or politician actually dispute the claim "Barrack Obama is a socialist." Mainly because it's not really a "claim." It's just empty rhetoric that anyone who matters already knows is bullshit.

Carefully-worded direct refutation of spoken bullshit is something that happens only in internet forums and editorials. It's not something that often happens verbally, especially when the bullshitter in question is your superior officer in a paramilitary organization.

And it DEFINITELY never happens in movies.

That's almost BEYOND impossible; they'd be the few people in the Federation who knew how unlikely it really was, who knew what OTHER threats the Federation had to deal with beyond the Klingon threat and would be in the best position to look at the bigger picture.

They, like Cartwright, are NOT motivated by legitimate concern for security of the Federation or the future of Starfleet. They are motivated primarily by their hatred of Klingons and their feeling that anything less than the complete domination of the Empire by the Federation is tantamount to surrender.

Even Kirk says as much; when you get down to it, dismantling of the FLEET isn't what he's really afraid of. He's afraid that the Klingons will violate any long-term peace deal with the Federation and that the Gorkon initiative is just a ruse to prepare for war. Hence the Hitler Comparison at dinner, and telling Bones that he was "terrified" of the idea of there being no more neutral zone. Not for any specific reason, just because he was "so used to hating Klingons."

It's really not about dismantling the fleet. It's about their no longer having a political/military framework in which to hate Klingons.

 

I think that TUC was Nicholas Meyer's Cold War allegory in its own self-contained continuity in which the only major powers were the Federation and the Klingon Empire. In that context, it makes more sense.

Kor