Would a series of Star Trek soldier/pilot novels work?

[KRAD]

Okay, here's my problem with your argument, Geoff -- you're assuming, as Roddenberry did later in life, that the word "military" is a dirty word. You just wrote a lengthy argument that basically boils down to you not liking the very idea of a military, and I gotta ask what the problem is.

Yes, Picard said, "Starfleet is not a military organization." In "Samaritan Snare" Wesley Crusher said that the Klingons joined the Federation, and Picard didn't correct him. Sometimes the characters say things that are wrong. This, IMO, is one of those times.

Why, Geoff, is it so important to you that Starfleet not be military? What's so all-fired wrong about it?

I have never, in 30 odd years of watching Star Trek, thought I was watching the adventures of soldiers.

Then you weren't paying very close attention.

 

[Richard White]

Strange, but in the 40+ years I've been watching Star Trek, even as a little kid in the 60s, I never saw Star Trek as anything but the US Navy in Space.

My fifteen plus years in the Army pretty well solidified that. You could take any unit in any division or regiment I served in and transfer them to any Starfleet vessel, even ones specifically designed for research like the Grissom, and they'd have felt right at home.

You put them on a civilian ship and they'd be completely lost.

Starfleet may be pacifistic military, but it's definitely military.

The day Star Trek loses the uniforms, ranks, and chain of command, that's the day I'll start believing it's not a military.

 

[captcalhoun]

wesley also said 'i'm with Starfleet, we don't lie'. y'believe that too?

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Okay, here's my problem with your argument, Geoff -- you're assuming, as Roddenberry did later in life, that the word "military" is a dirty word. You just wrote a lengthy argument that basically boils down to you not liking the very idea of a military, and I gotta ask what the problem is.

Yes, Picard said, "Starfleet is not a military organization." In "Samaritan Snare" Wesley Crusher said that the Klingons joined the Federation, and Picard didn't correct him. Sometimes the characters say things that are wrong. This, IMO, is one of those times.

Why, Geoff, is it so important to you that Starfleet not be military? What's so all-fired wrong about it?

I have never, in 30 odd years of watching Star Trek, thought I was watching the adventures of soldiers.

Then you weren't paying very close attention.

Dunno.

My Dad was a soldier. Vietnam, two tours. He enlisted instead of finishing college. I think in our current situation as a species, military organizatons are a necessary fact of life. An unpleasant one. I don't like the idea of young men and women signing up to be weapons for basically untrustworthy and unscrupulous governments unless it is absolutely their course of last choice (US Revolution, WW2).

My Dad said he was raising me to be psychologically unfit for war (his precise words) and it's likely he did his job. I don't believe in the "preemptive strike" and I'm always glad when a person survives military service with all limbs and faculties intact. I never think the maiming of a twenty year old, on either side, in the taking of an unnamed and ultimately inconsequential patch of dirt is worth it. My applause for soldiers is only for when they don't get killed. I consider any of their deaths a waste of good material. regardless of which side they may be on.

I never thought of myself as anti-military but if that's what these sentiments add up to, I'm cool with it. I'm certainly not anti violence. Never a pacifist in the classic sense.

I know I won't see it in my lifetime but in Star Trek I get a vision of future in which only external forces are stupid enough to require armies.

Currently we aren't one of those. Our species is still pretty stupid. Monkey dumb. But, in Star Trek, we have made it. I like that idea. I don't find it restrictive or sappy. I love it. It makes me smile.

In context of the Trek-verse, I think when more than one member of the organization in question makes a clear distinction between "explorer" and "soldier", as well as the creator of the universe making that same distinction, it's my job as an audience member to make that work, not figure reasons why it doesn't. Inconsistencies must be explained to fit the larger context, not to undermine it because Gene was, in some ways, politically scrambled.

BSG is a show about a military organization. Stargate is also. I think both are awesome in their own right but they are, neither of them, Star Trek and that is one of the reasons why.

Star Trek is a show about peaceful explorers in a sometimes lethal and often hostile unknown universe. Of course they have weapons. of course they have uniforms and ranks. These aren't private citizens or corporations doing the job. And there is more than one more possible choice.

Taking their kids along for the ride kills any notion that this is anything we would recognize as a military org, regardless of how the names in the hierarchical structure sound. Kids on Enterprise? Not a warship. The Captain says they're explorers, not soldiers? He's not lying.

Unless the current and former members of the military can show me a time when any modern human military has done anything like that. That fact alone is enough to dispel the idea that these are warships. If they're not, Picard's statement must be so.

As I said, I'm much more comfy with Archer's and even [to some degree] Kirk's Starfleets being martial but Picard's? No way.

Armies are expressions of social failure. Star Trek is about success.

 

[BrotherBenny]

I'm with Geoff on this.

To me, Starflaat has always been a defence/explorer agency within a quasi-military framework, rather than a military in the strictest sense.

David, KRAD, I can see where you're both coming from, but I agree with Geoff about the future and that a "military" like hundreds of other words has changed meaning.

For example, when Wesley said that the Klingons had joined the Federation, perhaps he meant as allies rather than a member? "joining" has more than one meaning.

 

[JoeZhang]

I'm with Geoff on this.

To me, Starflaat has always been a defence/explorer agency within a quasi-military framework, rather than a military in the strictest sense.

David, KRAD, I can see where you're both coming from, but I agree with Geoff about the future and that a "military" like hundreds of other words has changed meaning.

If it had changed it's meaning so radically, then why isn't that supported by what we see on the screen or explained ? This isn't a show beamed to a 23rd century audience, it's beamed to us and it's rather weak to claim "well the meaning of the word has changed" because that doesn't mean anything to the viewer, it certainly doesn't mean anything to me....

For example, when Wesley said that the Klingons had joined the Federation, perhaps he meant as allies rather than a member? "joining" has more than one meaning.

or maybe it's just a mistake in the script ?

 

[Sci]

How exactly are we defining the term "military?" What are the connotations that we as individuals associate with that word -- what phrases might we use to describe a typical military?

 

[Dayton Ward]

Of course it's a military organization.

It's just not the same kind of military organization we have today. Its mission has evolved over the centuries, just as today's military forces have evolved from where they were and what they did centuries ago. Therefore, some comparisons will work, others won't.

It doesn't really have to get any more complicated than that.

 

[Trent Roman]

Yup, I agree with RedJack. Starfleet has the form but not the content of a military organization. It may still have a uniform code of conduct and court-martials, but what it lacks is a martial culture - and what people do is far more important than what people call themselves (though, as stated elsewhere, Picard does not consider the 'fleet a military organization, and whereas Wesley is naive, Picard is not: he doesn't consider it a military organization presumably because its purpose is not primarily military). These aren't soldiers that double as explorers or diplomats or whatever; they are specialists (diplomats, scientists, engineers) who can act as soldiers when the situation requires it. Look at the contrast, within Starfleet, between branches like Medical and Sciences, and Security. Starfleet Security does have a martial culture, or at least what we've seen of it; they're the closest the Federation has to a warrior cadre. Starfleet has ranks and orders... but we've seen many times that officers play fast and loose with those orders as circumstances direct, are indeed encouraged to show initiative in that respect, and better yet will disobey orders considered to be directly illegal or in general violation of the organization's stated principles. Starfleet is open and tries to be as non-threatening as possible; how many times has Picard or another captain choosen to approach an unknown with defences lowered in a sign of peace? And of course, there's the high regard for life Starfleet shows, both allied, civilian and enemy. Starfleet would never dream of killing civilians to kill some of their enemies; heck, they'd prefer not to kill their enemies in the first place. Starfleet has the trappings of a military, but they don't have the mindset of a military, and that makes all the difference.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Sci]

Yup, I agree with RedJack. Starfleet has the form but not the content of a military organization. It may still have a uniform code of conduct and court-martials, but what it lacks is a martial culture - and what people do is far more important than what people call themselves (though, as stated elsewhere, Picard does not consider the 'fleet a military organization, and whereas Wesley is naive, Picard is not: he doesn't consider it a military organization presumably because its purpose is not primarily military). These aren't soldiers that double as explorers or diplomats or whatever; they are specialists (diplomats, scientists, engineers) who can act as soldiers when the situation requires it. Look at the contrast, within Starfleet, between branches like Medical and Sciences, and Security. Starfleet Security does have a martial culture, or at least what we've seen of it; they're the closest the Federation has to a warrior cadre. Starfleet has ranks and orders... but we've seen many times that officers play fast and loose with those orders as circumstances direct, are indeed encouraged to show initiative in that respect, and better yet will disobey orders considered to be directly illegal or in general violation of the organization's stated principles. Starfleet is open and tries to be as non-threatening as possible; how many times has Picard or another captain choosen to approach an unknown with defences lowered in a sign of peace? And of course, there's the high regard for life Starfleet shows, both allied, civilian and enemy. Starfleet would never dream of killing civilians to kill some of their enemies; heck, they'd prefer not to kill their enemies in the first place. Starfleet has the trappings of a military, but they don't have the mindset of a military, and that makes all the difference.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

So, you define a military as a state institution that possesses a violent culture, a very rigid and inflexible hierarchy, a closed and threatening demeanor towards outsiders, and little regard for sentient life?

 

[Trent Roman]

^ I'd say those are some of the salient features of past and contemporary military organizations, from the way they behave (as opposed to the propaganda they occasionally try to emit). The 'closed and threatening' thing is really just part of broader strain of jingoism, nativism and xenophobia that can be applied internally (think of the discrimination that, at various times, non-whites, women and homosexuals experienced/are experiencing). Trek is not entirely immune; both have shown a tendency towards conspiracy and cover-up (though Trek to a far lesser degree) but Starfleet's attitude is, I think, still too different to be termed 'military'.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Sci]

^ I'd say those are some of the salient features of past and contemporary military organizations, from the way they behave (as opposed to the propaganda they occasionally try to emit). The 'closed and threatening' thing is really just part of broader strain of jingoism, nativism and xenophobia that can be applied internally (think of the discrimination that, at various times, non-whites, women and homosexuals experienced/are experiencing). Trek is not entirely immune; both have shown a tendency towards conspiracy and cover-up (though Trek to a far lesser degree) but Starfleet's attitude is, I think, still too different to be termed 'military'.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Okay. My question therefore becomes:

Are those traits inherent to the military, or are they the products of the societies in which those militaries exist?

To put it another way:

It would be perfectly reasonable to say that one of the fundamental traits of a state has historically been a tendency to engage in racism and sexism. Female Americans and Americans of African descent, for instance, were traditionally discriminated against, often in very violent ways, in the United States, for instance. Canadians of French descent have suffered a history of oppression, Israelis of Arab descent face persecution in Israel.... Etc.

And yet, no one disputes the fact that states continue to exist in the world of Star Trek. The United Federation of Planets, indeed, possesses all of the traits of a state. And yet, so far as we know, the Federation is extremely nondiscriminatory -- even creatures initially believed to have been nonsentient are, upon the discovery of their sentience, welcomed into the government and made equal partners on all levels of society. Why? Because in the world of Star Trek, the behavior of the state has changed. It is still a state, but it is no longer a state that does those bad things that states used to do.

Cannot the same be true of the military and of Starfleet? Because nothing in that list of traits you associate with the military is actually necessary for something to be a military.

 

[JoeZhang]

^ I'd say those are some of the salient features of past and contemporary military organizations, from the way they behave (as opposed to the propaganda they occasionally try to emit). The 'closed and threatening' thing is really just part of broader strain of jingoism, nativism and xenophobia that can be applied internally (think of the discrimination that, at various times, non-whites, women and homosexuals experienced/are experiencing). Trek is not entirely immune; both have shown a tendency towards conspiracy and cover-up (though Trek to a far lesser degree) but Starfleet's attitude is, I think, still too different to be termed 'military'.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

So the solider (and what else is he?) with the tubes of ketecal white around his neck, what is he?

 

[Trent Roman]

I'm not quite sure your analogy follows, because states have many more distinguishing features that run far deeper than things like rank structures, but here goes:

It would be perfectly reasonable to say that one of the fundamental traits of a state has historically been a tendency to engage in racism and sexism. Female Americans and Americans of African descent, for instance, were traditionally discriminated against, often in very violent ways, in the United States, for instance. Canadians of French descent have suffered a history of oppression, Israelis of Arab descent face persecution in Israel.... Etc.

I would submit that this argument is part of a broader pattern of state-based discrimination, not just on race or sex but ethnicity, religion, dis/ability, sexual orientation, etc. So the question as I see it is: is discrimination an inherent part of the nation-state as an apparatus, or merely a result that so far all nation-states have been populated and run by discriminatory people? Unfortunately, I believe discrimination is inherent in the idea of the nation-state, which at it's most basic level is a means of making divisions: these are 'our' people, those are not. We're all human, but the nation-state system says that some of us are Canadian, not Mexican; Indian, not Pakistani; Chinese, not Japanese. The Federation, whether it wants to or not, makes the same distinction; so, we're all sentients, but some of us are Federation, not Carnelian Regency, etc.

And yet, no one disputes the fact that states continue to exist in the world of Star Trek. The United Federation of Planets, indeed, possesses all of the traits of a state. And yet, so far as we know, the Federation is extremely nondiscriminatory -- even creatures initially believed to have been nonsentient are, upon the discovery of their sentience, welcomed into the government and made equal partners on all levels of society. Why? Because in the world of Star Trek, the behavior of the state has changed. It is still a state, but it is no longer a state that does those bad things that states used to do.

I don't agree. Specific internal discrimination has been a feature of almost all states I can think of, but it's also a process that is in constant flux because (I would hope) human history demonstrates progress from intense to lesser discrimination. So we used to discriminate strongly against people of certain races, certain faiths, gender, etc., until that became passé as society gradually learnt its lesseons... but then it was replaced, or it became more evident that will still discriminate against other faiths (or lack thereof), non-standard sexualities, the differently abled, ageism... tomorrow, it'll be something else that will be the 'big issue', transsexuals or multiple marriages or something we can't even predict yet. What is common to states is not the specific type of discrimination practiced, but that is exists, and is gradually (progressively) shifting from sub-class to sub-class.

Now, what about the Federation? It is true that the Federation is remarkably non-discriminatory. We saw it conquer anti-alien sentiment in ENT's era, then (because the military is, by its nature, a more conversative animal, slower to change, than society broadly) that same prejudice is defeated within the militarized Starfleet of Kirk's time to become more-or-less a non-issue by the 24th century. So the Federation (and its precedant society) evinces the same kind of 'progression' of non-discrimination. It wants to be non-discriminatory, but because you can't always predict where the next issue will arise, it is difficult to always do so: we saw prejudice against artificial lifeforms raised, challenged and defeated on TNG with Data and the exocomps; we saw, in VOY, the prejudice against holographic lifeforms (usign EMH Mark Is as slave labour in mining!) and the beginning of the challenges to that form of discrimination, with the hope that soon sentient holograms will achieve full rights as Federation citizens. The process of recognizing and defeating discrimination is faster in the Federation, because it's at the end of a long process of evolving rights, because it's an enlightened, rational, well-meaning and just gosh-darn better society... but it's still there. Too a far lesser degree, absolutely, but it's not gone away, in large part because it isn't always self-evident to recognize it as it's happening.

Are those traits inherent to the military, or are they the products of the societies in which those militaries exist? (...) Cannot the same be true of the military and of Starfleet? Because nothing in that list of traits you associate with the military is actually necessary for something to be a military.

So you say. I think there comes a point where a correlation becomes so overwhelming that you have to start wondering if there might not also be a causation there. 'Military' is a mindset created by a designated function--fighting the 'enemy'--which displays martial culture, and those 'traits', I would argue, stem from that mindset. Starfleet does not display that culture; it has miltiary trappings, but not the mindset.

ETA:

So the solider (and what else is he?) with the tubes of ketecal white around his neck, what is he?

I'm not sure I understand the question. The Dominion has a slave-army, and the Jem'Hadar do very much evince a martial culture... but how does that reflect on the Federation and Starfleet?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[JoeZhang]

I'm not sure I understand the question. The Dominion has a slave-army, and the Jem'Hadar do very much evince a martial culture... but how does that reflect on the Federation and Starfleet?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

no I'm referring to the siege of ar-558, one of the soldiers wears tubes of white he takes off Jem'hadar he's killed.


(I'm not sure how you'd watch any of Ar-558 and not conclude that the federation does not have a military aspect to it - especially considering on the meta-level, it's intended to reflect various war movies).

 

[Geoff Thorne]

I'm not sure I understand the question. The Dominion has a slave-army, and the Jem'Hadar do very much evince a martial culture... but how does that reflect on the Federation and Starfleet?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

no I'm referring to the siege of ar-558, one of the soldiers wears tubes of white he takes off Jem'hadar he's killed.


(I'm not sure how you'd watch any of Ar-558 and not conclude that the federation does not have a military aspect to it - especially considering on the meta-level, it's intended to reflect various war movies).

Clearly this was one of the situations where Starfleet was pressed into a military configuration, having to retool its outlook, methods and technology to fit this most pressing and unusual situation.

The soldiers in that ep and, indeed in the entire Dom War, are people who would not have been soldiers or ever seen themselves that way had that situation not occurred and, repeatedly we are shown examples of how turning too far in that direction is corruptive to Starfleet officers. Another strike against the idea that they are military. The more like soldiers they become, the LESS like Starfleet they are shown to be.

EVERYONE is a potential soldier when your nation is under attack. That isn't the same as existing in a culture designed for and supportive of military action. Accepting a possible consequence of life in a bumpy universe is not the same has creating a standing army of soldiers that are ready to go.

Another thing about the security division: there are obviously FAR fewer of them than any of the other departments. Another strike against martial culture or self identification as a military org.

 

[Trent Roman]

^ Yep. That episode was about the psychology of warfare, and it was repeatedly stated that the officers on AR-Whatever had been stuck there on the frontlines too long. Those officers didn't come maladjusted; it was the frontline experience that created that mindset among them. You could see it illustrated with Nog, who is certainly not a soldier, being drawn into their manner of behaving--and Quark, who had a great episode, objecting both to Nog and to Sisko about this militarization of his nephew. If the Defiant crew had been stuck there for as long as those officers had been, like as not they would have evolved a similar comportment.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Sci]

I'm not sure I understand the question. The Dominion has a slave-army, and the Jem'Hadar do very much evince a martial culture... but how does that reflect on the Federation and Starfleet?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

no I'm referring to the siege of ar-558, one of the soldiers wears tubes of white he takes off Jem'hadar he's killed.


(I'm not sure how you'd watch any of Ar-558 and not conclude that the federation does not have a military aspect to it - especially considering on the meta-level, it's intended to reflect various war movies).

Clearly this was one of the situations where Starfleet was pressed into a military configuration, having to retool its outlook, methods and technology to fit this most pressing and unusual situation.

The soldiers in that ep and, indeed in the entire Dom War, are people who would not have been soldiers or ever seen themselves that way had that situation not occurred and, repeatedly we are shown examples of how turning too far in that direction is corruptive to Starfleet officers. Another strike against the idea that they are military. The more like soldiers they become, the LESS like Starfleet they are shown to be.

EVERYONE is a potential soldier when your nation is under attack. That isn't the same as existing in a culture designed for and supportive of military action. Accepting a possible consequence of life in a bumpy universe is not the same has creating a standing army of soldiers that are ready to go.

Another thing about the security division: there are obviously FAR fewer of them than any of the other departments. Another strike against martial culture or self identification as a military org.

And yet, when they discipline their employees, they go and call it a court martial. And they don't just fire people or suspend pay; they can literally lock someone up in a brig and deny them access to the civilian court system. That's one of the key distinctions between a military and a civilian organization.

Again, I'd like to know exactly how you define a military, RedJack. What, to you, are the distinguishing characteristics of a military? Do you think that the Canadian Forces, with their emphasis on things like humanitarian aid and assistance, constitute a military?

 

[KRAD]

I find it amusing that two of the people who have argued most strongly and convincingly that Starfleet is military are the only two people participating in this discussion who have actually been in the military.....

Also the arguments against are mostly predicated on the military being bad, and the entire notion of a military to be flawed. I find this, honestly, insulting to those who have served. Yes, Starfleet is more evolved than the current U.S. Army, just as the current U.S. Army is more evolved than the Roman Legions.

 

[Sci]

I find it amusing that two of the people who have argued most strongly and convincingly that Starfleet is military are the only two people participating in this discussion who have actually been in the military.....

Indeed. I have a good friend who is part of the Army National Guard; the guy is in no way violent, or aggressive, or obsessed with hurting the enemy, or killing people, or closed minded, or warmongering, or politically conservative, or anything of the sort that Trent and RedJack seem to be associating with the military. I've met members of the armed forces who were like that, but then I've met civilians who were like that, too. I certainly have never encountered any evidence in my dealings with members of the Armed Forces that that kind of violence is something that's inherent to the military.

ETA:

For the record, my copy of The American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th Edition defines "military" as follows:

mil·i·tar·y (mĭl'ĭ-tĕr'ė) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of members of the armed forces. 2. Performed or supported by the armed forces: military service. 3. Of or relating to war: military operations. 4. Of or relating to land forces. - n., pl. military also -ies 1. Armed forces. 2. Members, esp. officers, of an armed force.

Starfleet carries armes. It commits acts of force in the service of the Federation. It is the institution that defends the Federation from other states' warmongerings. Sounds like an armed force -- like a military -- to me.