Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x14 - "The War Without, The War Within"

[eschaton]

Think 24 organizations with starships that conduct the equivalent of 9-11 raids. And the Federation, largely unable to respond, decides to invade Afghanistan, because, you know, that's what we do.

Yeah, but terrorists under no circumstances were an actual military threat to the U.S. An existential threat perhaps, but that's all. Under such a scenario, the Klingons are mainly a political problem for the Federation (making it look incompetent and weak).

 

[137th Gebirg]

Again, the analogy falls apart, because the U.S. was the occupying force in Vietnam. The Viet Cong were fighting on home territory, had the advantage of being able to better use the terrain, and ultimately had more sympathy from the people within the field of battle than the U.S. Successfully fought asymmetric warfare almost always involves the "guerrilla" actor fighting from a position of self-defense. The party self-defending in this case is the Federation, not the Klingon Empire.

Could the Klingons engage in massively successful raids which crippled the Federation's ability to project their power? Yes, of course. But fundamentally the Klingons fight wars more like Vikings or pirates, not like an army. Most of the time they just fuck things up and they leave. Sometimes they decide to seize a base local of operations when convenient. But actually occupying the Federation is beyond their capabilities, as they're spread too thin and lack the supply trains needed.

Point well made. Yes, the Klingons' ability to occupy Federation territory is severely overextended. My guess is that they are going to continue to pursue scorch-and-burn attacks on Starfleet vessels, making it equally impossible for them to hold onto their own territory as well. Once Fed starship material is expended, occupation becomes irrelevant, as there will be nothing left that Starfleet can use to actively take back captured systems. The Klingons acquire more resources that used to belong to the Federation and begin building new ships in new territories. Their "plan", such as it is, is that occupation comes long after victory.

'Course, we all know that won't happen, so I guess this is more of a look at the actual journey at how we "got from there to here", to paraphrase Enterprise .

Someone else mentioned it earlier, this evisceration of the fleet definitely seems like a good explanation why there are hardly any ships other than the odd Connie floating around after it's all said and done. The question then remains - what event occurs within the Klingon ranks to wipe out all their invading ships that eventually leads to next-generation D-7's being built in the late 23rd, bringing things back to a relative state of parity and equilibrium?

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Could the Klingons engage in massively successful raids which crippled the Federation's ability to project their power? Yes, of course. But fundamentally the Klingons fight wars more like Vikings or pirates, not like an army. Most of the time they just fuck things up and they leave. Sometimes they decide to seize a base local of operations when convenient. But actually occupying the Federation is beyond their capabilities, as they're spread too thin and lack the supply trains needed.

I think Cornwell using the term 'occupy' was incorrect. For the most part is seems that the Klingons are not occupying all of their targets. If the attacks on Kelfour, Nivalla, Septron and Iridin are any indication, the Klingons are eradicating populations then moving on to the next target. There is no indication in dialogue to suggest that the Klingons are committing troops to hold these locations. Also the tactics being used, like burning off a planets atmosphere doesn't require the use of an entire fleet to accomplish.

I think what it really comes down to is that starfleet was woefully unprepared to fight the war in the first place, and the Klingons got lucky with their strikes on Starbases 12, 19 and 22. For some reason Starfleet had a large number of ships at these locations possibly to go on the offensive. Instead, the klingons wiped out a third of fleet. Starfleet is now spread thin as a result and is probably committing it's forces to defend the core systems, leaving the outer colonies and bases open for attack.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Where did Sarek beam to?

The same ship he beamed over from.

 

[XCV330]

Point well made. Yes, the Klingons' ability to occupy Federation territory is severely overextended. My guess is that they are going to continue to pursue scorch-and-burn attacks on Starfleet vessels, making it equally impossible for them to hold onto their own territory as well. Once Fed starship material is expended, occupation becomes irrelevant, as there will be nothing left that Starfleet can use to actively take back captured systems. The Klingons acquire more resources that used to belong to the Federation and begin building new ships in new territories. Their "plan", such as it is, is that occupation comes long after victory.

'Course, we all know that won't happen, so I guess this is more of a look at the actual journey at how we "got from there to here", to paraphrase Enterprise .

Someone else mentioned it earlier, this evisceration of the fleet definitely seems like a good explanation why there are hardly any ships other than the odd Connie floating around after it's all said and done. The question then remains - what event occurs within the Klingon ranks to wipe out all their invading ships that eventually leads to next-generation D-7's being built in the late 23rd, bringing things back to a relative state of parity and equilibrium?

Hard to find a good analogy to from history that exactly fits this kind of war, that I can find anyway, but one that does maybe come to mind a little is the 1st Crusade.

One thing to remember is that the UFP may not be as united as we've come to think. Kirk specifically mentions Enterprise is operating under the authority of UESPA. We know there is a Vulcan expeditionary group as well. Fully integrated crews are probably a rarity.

So initially a very united Klingon empire hit the unprepared UFP who though more technically advanced and holding the defenders position, which is generally the strongest, gradually was worn down. The Klingons had such momentum that it survived leadership changes AND finally total loss of central coordination.

While there was a command structure for the First Crusade it did not hold, and was subject to rivalries amongst the various leaders present on the Christian side, whereas they faced powerful Seljuk Empire. The Seljuqs were not prepared for the onslaught originally and never really recovered. If they had, they might well have defeated the Crusaders in pitched battle early on, or at least reduced the invaders ability to successfully besiege large cities and fortresses in territory and a climate they were unprepared for. Like the UFP, the Seljuqs were, under the surface, dealing with their own internal divisions and had already lost Palestine to the the Fatimids. This left a fractured Crusader leadership fully capable of peacemealing territories into multiple crusader states.

 

[137th Gebirg]

True, there may be more segregation between planetary services than we would think. The all-Vulcan crew of the Intrepid lends credence to that notion, and we know that, during Archer's time, the founding members were still not very trusting of each other, despite all the progress they made from outright hostility, not even 100 years before. Perhaps the Federation, too, had a disjointed defense during this time, which largely contributed to their being thrown against the ropes so handily. How many aliens do we see on board Discovery, for example? There are some augmented humans, yes, but still human. We have Saru and then...who? It certainly isn't the bouillabaisse of alienkind that we see on the Abramsprise in the alt-timeline.

Perhaps Azetbur's accusation of the Federation being a homo-sapiens-only club has merit all along.

 

[XCV330]

True, there may be more segregation between planetary services than we would think. The all-Vulcan crew of the Intrepid lends credence to that notion, and we know that, during Archer's time, the founding members were still not very trusting of each other, despite all the progress they made from outright hostility, not even 100 years before. Perhaps the Federation, too, had a disjointed defense during this time, which largely contributed to their being thrown against the ropes so handily. How many aliens do we see on board Discovery, for example? There are some augmented humans, yes, but still human. We have Saru and then...who? It certainly isn't the bouillabaisse of alienkind that we see on the Abramsprise in the alt-timeline.

Perhaps Azetbur's accusation of the Federation being a homo-sapiens-only club has merit all along.

And Saru is the only one of his kind in Starfleet, apparentl. It seems the aliens you do see in most Starfleet ships are species with only minor involvement or no membership at all.

 

[eltel99uk]

True, there may be more segregation between planetary services than we would think. The all-Vulcan crew of the Intrepid lends credence to that notion, and we know that, during Archer's time, the founding members were still not very trusting of each other, despite all the progress they made from outright hostility, not even 100 years before. Perhaps the Federation, too, had a disjointed defense during this time, which largely contributed to their being thrown against the ropes so handily. How many aliens do we see on board Discovery, for example? There are some augmented humans, yes, but still human. We have Saru and then...who? It certainly isn't the bouillabaisse of alienkind that we see on the Abramsprise.

Sorry to paraphrase a comment I made earlier but I think the non-canon book by Diane Duane on the introduction of the Connie was also great in illustrating this point. I think many Federation members *were* a little worried it would be a homo sapiens club.... and if the Federation wasn't regarded so then Starfleet certainly was. I don't think Starfleet had the universal trust we see in (e.g.) TNG and thus with only 12 (14?) Connies commissioned it shows that the Federation wasn't exactly ready to accept Starfleet dominion. indeed the war may help speed such an integration.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Non-canonically speaking, I rather like the explanation propounded by @Christopher in his (excellent, IMHO) "Rise of the Federation" novels.

The basic thrust of the gist is this: For the first few years (maybe few decades) after the formation of the Federation, there was a Starfleet, but it wasn't truly unified. It was composed of the fleets of its founding members. Each of those "sub-fleets" had a different responsibility. And it turns out that it's not every ship in the entire Starfleet that has a unique insignia on the crew's uniforms - just each of the sub-fleets:

- United Earth Space Probe Agency
Purpose: exploration.
Symbol: Arrowhead.
Examples: USS Enterprise, USS Discovery.

- Andorian Guard
Purpose: military defense.
Symbol: Pretzel.
Example: USS Constellation ("The Doomsday Machine")

- Vulcan Space Council
Purpose: research & development.
Symbol: IDIC.
Example: USS Intrepid ("The Immunity Syndrome")

- Tellar Space Administration
Purpose: logistics & supply.
Symbol: Hoof.
Example: USS Antares ("Charlie X").

- Alpha Centauri Space Research Council
Purpose: Whatever purpose it was.
Symbol: Rectangle.
Example: USS Exeter ("The Omega Glory").

 

[Ometiklan]

So first my current take on Discovery overall and then a few other thoughts:

I am starting to sour a little on Discovery. It has largely been a more sucessful first season than most of Trek (outside of TOS), with a lot of great stuff, but it has had major problems. Some have gotten less severe but some have continued. Seems like a combination of changing showrunners, changing focus of the show, the showrunners not really knowing what they wanted the show to be, not great writing, and the serialized nature. Likely things will improve in season 2.

Two points to hit on here:
1. The writers. Like a lot of Trek there has been a lot of writer turnover (also producers), so maybe in season 2 - like TNG by season 3 - Discovery will have ID'd good writers than can write better Trek.
2. Serialization and pace: maybe with a more episodic, mission-of-the-week structure (which the producers have suggested will happen in season 2) the pacing of the show will even out. Too many major issues and plot points are glossed over, handwaved, ignored, or solved with nary a moment's consideration or weight thrown behind it. So much plot maneuvering takes place each episode that in many episodes (especially here in "War within, war without") major themes that should take a whole episode - or at least a whole A or B plot in an episode - are brought up, confronted, and resolved in like two scenes with no real discussion or serious consideration by any of the characters. Each decision is just fait accompli. For example, basically the whole war goes by off screen with the occasional exposition drop or space powerpoint presentation just so we can get to the next plot point on Discovery.

[side note: check out the Shuttlepod at the Disco podcast from Slashfilm on this episode. they make a lot of good points about some of the same stuff I cover here: including space powerpoint. ]

One good example of the pacing issue is Tyler in "War within, war without". He wakes up, is greeted by Saru, allowed to roam the ship as normal (with restricted privileges) with no consideration of his potential danger to himself or others. The doctor says she doesn't even know if he is really fixed, yet other than the bracelet whose purpose isn't explained, Tyler roams free. If this storyline had taken place in a DS9 episode (as as it is the only show that has done a good job addressing consequences and fallout from earlier decisions), the episode would have focused on Tyler's storyline as the whole A plot, with likely Burnham's story inserted as a B-plot, with the senior staff discussing and addressing the problem of Tyler. They would have at least brought up the medical, security, legal, and personal issues with his guilt or innocence and his freedom on the ship and position within Starfleet. Some characters would have been opposed to integration, some would have been in favor. Some positions would have changed over the episode. Staments and Burnham could still have rejected him by the end of the episode, and Tilly could still have befriended him. But at least the issues would have been considered seriously instead of passed off quickly. Instead we have Saru, one scene, Tyler is free to roam, check; Stamets, one scene, still hate you, check; Tilly one scene, you're A-OK with us, check; Burnham, one scene, still hate you, check. No consideration, no discussion, nothing; just on to the next plot point. Yeah, maybe that would be more "boring" TNG/DS9 24th century think-y Trek, but it would be more solid.

The whole episode (and much of the show) is overstuffed like this:
- Spore drive useless: no problem, in one short scene over about 10 minutes Stamets terraforms a moon (!), regrows the spores from the only remaining uncorrupted mycellium (how did it survive the network wide corruption?) and the drive is good to go again
- Losing the war: no problem, cover the whole second half of the war in a 2 minute exposition dump, then in a couple short scenes put the most ruthless person imaginable in charge to lead a mission to destroy a planet - with no discussion of the morals or consequences or back up plans (though it seems like Sarek is on that backup mission)

I still like the show a lot, but it has not been as good as it should have been given the time and money available.

My other major issue is that despite what the showrunners have been trying to achieve all along, they are not doing a good job respecting the universe/canon. They may be sticking to the letter of the law by eventually nullifying the spore drive, or classifying knowledge of the Mirror Universe, or having the Klingon war end in a stalemate/unstable peace, or the myriad other decisions that paper over potential violations. But the problem with these is though they, arguably, keep to what is 100% known in canon, they way the approach it is "dangerous" to the fabric of the universe. For example, no where in TOS is it said that the Klingons had recently been winning a war against the Federation, destroying at least 20% of the fleet and taking 20% of Federation territory (including a starbase just outside of the Sol system). True, it was also not ruled out, but on the balance there is no indication that the Federation was on the brink of total destruction <10 years earlier. So Discovery "fits" within the spoken canon, but basically shreds the "tonal" canon in this respect. I didn't have a problem with Discovery being a prequel, exploring things not unknown and not forbidden in Trek history, changing the look of the Klingons or of the ships and technology, but there is a big difference between creating a new race (Kelpians) or character (Burnham) previously unseen, and creating a massive destructive war or a multi-episode/multi-ship/multi-character Mirror Universe crossover. To me this is too much like Voyager retconning first contact with the Borg (Seven's parents instead of "Q Who") or Enterprise introducing cloaks a century early (and Romulan cloaks at that). The show runners thought these were good ideas to explore, and they might be in their own space and time, but here shoved in before TOS where they barely fit? I can live with it, but I don't think these were the best decisions (like how Voyager undercuts the mystery/importance/impact of Borg first contact in TNG, at least in Enterprise they didn't know they were "the Borg"). For a prequel, especially a serialized prequel where you should have and know about your overarching themes and stories, do something more like in Enterprise season 4 where you pick an element of TOS canon previously unexplored (the Organians, the Vulcans/Surak, the Andorians and Tellarites) and focus on it and do it right.

Rant over. Conclusion: Discovery needs more room to breathe and better pacing and more thoughtful consideration of themes/events/decisions not just plot, plot, plot.

...Am hoping the standards I've seen continue - yes there are some tangents that seem to dominate pages of threads - but ultimately I'm enjoying the back-and-forth here. Hope others feel that way too. I laughed at the comment that without the random speculation this may as well be a load of kitten pics, but encyclopedic knowledge from others and consideration of wider issues many of us missed, it does, I hope provide *some* sources the writers might look at for S2. (We know most of S1 was done and dusted before we ever got going on speculation and criticism). Hoping this contributes to future improvements to future seasons.

I agree with your sentiments regarding thoughtful discussions on the board. Yay, everyone!

I really doubt anyone from Discovery visits here, but I hope that leading up to season 2 the showrunners do consider feedback. Not necessarily from the fans about canon points or stuff like that, but the basics on whether relationships grew organically and were fleshed out, whether themes were supported and explored by the substance and pacing of the show, whether important things were really shown or simply told to the audience, and whether the end points/redemptions were earned.

It must have been some kind of marker to show she's not general population.

Can't think of a reason wht they would mark out Starfleet personel to the civvie prisoners though.

I think she was marked just because all Starfleet prisoners are marked; she was simply going to another Starfleet detention location, she just shared a ride with gen pop prisoners.

I just watched this episode. One question:

When "Captain Georgiou" arrives on the bridge in the final scene, Cornwell's introduction of her seems to be trying to hide (from the rest of the bridge crew) that it's actually the Empress. But everybody on the ship already knows they've been to the MU, and surely they'd know it was MU Georgiou and not her prime counterpart (especially since the Empress hailed them directly at the end of "The Wolf Inside"). So why is Cornwell trying to hide it?

It would seem logical that everyone there would know about MU Georgiou, but Discovery plays fast and loose with plot points like this, so I guess that knowledge was just restricted to Saru and Burnham (though you think in the MU it would have been critical for Saru to inform his crew who they would be dealing with once they realized who Lorca was...but again, fast and loose with logic here on Discovery).

...9 months?...

Just wanted to point out that is has been something more like 18 months - about 9 months between "Battle at the Binary..." and "Into the Forest I go", and 9 months since then.

The worst part has nothing to do with the cloak or the time frame. It's that a politically divided foe - basically 24 different houses acting independently - could defeat the Federation. It means that one 24th of the total Klingon fleet is enough to win essentially any engagement with the Federation. It also means the Klingons are not coordinating anything. Not strategy, not tactics, not even logistics. Any admiral worth their salt should be able to use this against the Klingons - to win the war through the Federation's superior coordination.

One point: for the first half of the war, the Klingons were united behind Kor, and they had the cloaking tech. Just as we were about to turn the tide by killing Kor and defeating the cloak, we lost the Discovery. The Klingons were able to prosecute the rest of the war with their cloaks intact, even if they weren't centrally guided as before, they were already winning at that point.

 

[Tuskin38]

One point: for the first half of the war, the Klingons were united behind Kor,

Kol, not Kor. Though he is of the House of Kor.

 

[lawman]

It seems reasonable to me - given that Starfleet is reliably hopeless at war in any era - that Starfleet would suffer heavy losses in this first Klingon war...

How is that a given?

Perhaps this got retconned ,but if memory serves the cloaking tech was “licensed” to other Klingon houses , in exchange for swearing fealty to the house leader who took over the sarcophagus ship & kicked out T’rell.

Yeah, that was Kol. He and his ship were destroyed in episode 9, before the MU arc. Why the other Klingon houses did not then fall to fighting among themselves, I do not know. After all, the whole underlying rationale for the Klingon war that made the most sense to me (don't recall who originally posted this, sorry) was that it was all about elevating one's status (and one's house) within the Empire by scoring points against the Federation. Except for a few ideologues like T'Kuvma (dead), Voq (dead), and L'rell (captured), most other Klingons seem to view the Federation merely as a target of convenience, not an existential threat... and that should influence how far they're willing to stick their necks out for this war.

...an intelligently run fight from the Federation means offensive missions in Klingon space . If they just park ships around space stations and wait to be attacked it’s a given they’ll lose. Unfortunately I doubt the writers understand that , so here we are.

Well, at least they seem to be treating it as such a novel idea that in over a year no one in Starfleet thought of it, and it took someone from the Mirror Universe to suggest it. I find that exceedingly implausible.

It works within the confines of the story the writers have given us and for the story they are wanting to tell.

Well, yeah, that's kinda the point of the discussion here: complaining that the writers are giving us a contrived situation in order to tell us an implausible story. (Emphasis on "tell," BTW... they haven't even shown us much of anything. Almost the entire war has been delivered via expository dialogue.)

[Starfleet is] being hit on all sides by a brutal adversary who is playing the role of a highly motivated berzerker, with the only rule being there are no rules.

I dunno, I'm on the side here that finds it unconvincing that the Empire's divisions would be anything other than a disadvantage. (Maybe more insight into actual Klingon politics — like the show originally promised us — could have convinced me otherwise, but we never actually got any of that.)

The analogy that spring to mind for me is Asia in the 12th century. The Mongols were some of the most incredibly skilled horse warriors around, and they lived for fighting... amongst themselves. They were never even remotely a threat against the civilized imperial states that surrounded them — China to the east, Islam to the west. That is, until Genghis Khan managed to unite them... and once they were working together, within a generation they swept across Asia. That's what T'Kuvma seemingly wanted to do for the Klingons... but his plan never even got off the ground. Instead we can leapfrog the analogy to what happened to the Mongols after Genghis Khan's death... where his newly created empire was divided up amongst his descendants, most of whom didn't share his vision or leadership skills, and who therefore before long fell to fighting amongst themselves, and were unable to hold on to most of what they had conquered.

 

[Tuskin38]

Why the other Klingon houses did not then fall to fighting among themselves, I do not know.

They did, but instead fighting among themselves, they're fighting over who gets the most territory, the Admiral said that.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

The same ship he beamed over from.

Leonard McCoy: Go? Where are we going?
James T. Kirk: Where they went.
Leonard McCoy: Suppose they went nowhere?
James T. Kirk: Then this will be your big chance to get away from it all.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

One star, Omega Leonis, is 108 light years from Earth. Another star, Vulcan, is 16 light years from Earth. The Klingons in 9 months occupied 92 light years of space. (These stars are seen on the chart.). That is a lot of space. And, they couldn't hold it. For example, many of the stars in the upper right corner would either fall to the Romulans or the Federation or end up in the Romulan Neutral Zone.

 

[Noname Given]

So you're telling me that it's actually advantageous to not have a plan? That military conflicts work better if allies and units don't coordinate, and do whatever they damn well please? I mean, a fully coordinated Klingon invasion fleet would be capable of multiple strikes simultaneously as well, no?

The only way all of this works is if the Klingon Empire is massively more powerful than the Federation in terms of territory, firepower, technology, etc, to the extent that their power projection can override their lack of any strategy beyond "fuck shit up."

??? The 24 Klingon leaders ALL have their own plans and are executing them. What? Do you really not understand how messy actual war is? No, there isn't one unified command; BUT ALL 24 Houses have their own battle plans that they are executing as they see fit.

 

[eschaton]

??? The 24 Klingon leaders ALL have their own plans and are executing them. What? Do you really not understand how messy actual war is? No, there isn't one unified command; BUT ALL 24 Houses have their own battle plans that they are executing as they see fit.

Again, I'm not a student of military history - it bores me. But I know enough to realize that political division is a weakness that any skilled tactician can exploit. Within the human context, this has been known at least since Sun Tzu.

If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

Even if Starfleet isn't mostly a military organization, I would find it shocking if some admirals had not studied Sun Tzu

Regardless, there is a ton of wastage if each house is conducting their own separate war. What if two houses try to invade the same system? What if the supply lines of one house cut off another from a prize they seek? What if any one concentration of forces is too large for a single House to defeat? In joint actions, how do you decide who takes the lead - which house gets to order the other house to follow an attack plan?

Unless the power projection of the Klingon Empire is several times that of the Federation in general, these sort of issues should be enough to make them lose the war. This is because an army with 24 generals who don't answer to anyone higher basically has no overarching strategy (even if it has tactical aims).

 

[gblews]

She’s not hiding anything from the bridge crew. They all know Burnams history and the Battle of the Binary Stars intimately ,to say nothing about their trip to the Mirror Universe. Everyone on Discovery is well aware of the ex emperor( empress?) history.

But the Mirror Universe -and indeed Discovery’s spore drive itself- is classified. No official record of Emperor Augustus Georgiou can therefore exist.

Further,if Starfleet is to use Augustus Georgiou’s tactical advice they have to explain where it came from without exposing the Mirror Universe’s existence. The Admirals logged statement does that.

They aren't, though.

They may not know where the Emperor came from firsthand,but they know Captain Georgioiu is dead ,they just came from the Mirror Universe, and this woman who looks a LOT like the deceased captain of the USS Shenzhou just walked on the bridge.Doesn’t take a ship full of science geniuses to do the math on what that means.

I agree with grendelsbayne. The crew in general not only has no knowledge that the Emperor is on board, they don't even know that an Emperor even exists, much less one who looks exactly like Georgiou. In fact, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I cannot recall that there is any on screen evidence that the DISCO crew is even aware that they all have counterparts in the MU. I mean they all knew they were no longer in the PU, but I don't think the crew was ever informed of the details of the MU.

If someone does recall some on screen evidence, please let me know.

 

[unimatrix7]

How is that a given?

Didn't say it was. I said it seemed reasonable...to me.

 

[gblews]

So you're basically analogizing the Klingons to say the different Iraqi factions during the U.S. occupation. Once again, fighting a defensive war on home turf is different than fighting an offensive war.

The North Vietnamese fought an offensive war on their home turf and won. They, unlike the Kingons, lacked the ability to threaten the American homeland, otherwise, the Viet Cong may have used it. It appears to me that the Klingons have been fighting using unconventional tactics along with some very potent tech that the Feds do not own snd against which they cannot fight.