Sisko's Pale Moonlight
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
He's asking the computer a question - but the computer isn't the log. The log's a video diary - going as far back as TOS ("The Omega Glory"), logs were recorded on video rather than audio only - and while I'm sure his standard logs don't involve walking round the room with a drink in his hand, getting progressively the worse for wear, this is a personal log whose only purpose is to try and convince himself, not an official record (even if he HADN'T erased it at the end)
I still want to know exactly how badly the Federation were caned by the Romulans that signing a treaty requiring them to forever, unilaterally, give up cloaking technology would seem like reasonable terms...
The essential question here, of course, basically boils down to one of utilitarianism. Do the ends justify the means?
Well, it seems to me that one of the first things we have to do in evaluating Sisko's actions in "In the Pale Moonlight" and in drawing comparisons from his actions to real-life analogies is recognize that Sisko's circumstances were extraordinary. The stakes involved were quite literally so high as to render the situation very obviously one that only very, very rarely manifests itself in real life: The complete enslavement of Sisko's entire society and of all neighboring societies. To try to take Sisko's situation and apply it to a current dilemma facing the United States is, frankly, absurd; the United States and its allies do not face any existential threats (with the possible exception of global climate change). So something we need right off the bat to acknowledge is that Sisko's example simply does not apply to us, and never will unless our society finds itself facing extinction. The only times in the history of the United States I can think of when it might have applied to us are the Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War, frankly.
The next thing I think is important to keep in mind is, simply, this: Morality is not defined by exceptional circumstances. Morality is defined by the circumstances that typically exist. So to argue that Sisko's actions constitute a fundamental indictment of the entire Federation and of its values and its billions of citizens seems, I think, an act of extreme hyperbole. An important facet it consider here is that Sisko's actions do not represent standard Federation policy. Every indication that we have is that, in the vast majority of cases, the Federation is a state that respects and protects the rights of the individual. Sisko's actions, in other words, are not a fundamental element of the organization of Federation society; that represent a break with Federation law and tradition. Sisko's actions, in short, are not representative of the Federation's basic nature -- they do not represent Federation policy. This is in remarkable contrast to the moral dilemmas facing the United States today, where Constitutional and human rights violations have become part of executive policy (Guantanemo Bay, denial of habeas corpus, domestic spying, the invasion and occupation of Iraq) and only recently have other branches of the government begun to step in to curb such abuses.
Were Sisko's actions right? No. Sisko himself acknowledges this, nonverbally if not verbally. The man would not have spent an hour getting himself drunk and confessing to a personal log, trying to talk himself into thinking it was okay if he actually believed it was. Was it justifiable? Possibly. It depends on whether or not one accepts the notion that the stakes were simply too high to allow what we would today call the human rights -- let's replace the phrase "human rights" with the phrase "sentient rights," since we're talking about aliens -- the sentient rights of Senator Vreenak, his bodyguards and pilot, and the holo-artist to stand in the way of securing a Federation victory in the war. Certainly a Federation defeat would have resulted in sentient rights violations at the hands of the Dominion on a scale never before seen in Star Trek -- genocide against the inhabitants of Earth, and the occupation and oppression of hundreds of Federation Member States and their colonies.
Another question to consider is what was best for the Romulan Star Empire. Sisko and Jadzia make a very compelling case early in the episode that the rights of the Romulan people would be best protected by the RSE joining the UFP and Klingon Empire in the war against the Dominion. A Dominion victory, of course, would have put Dominion forces where the Klingons, Cardassians, and Federation used to be -- the RSE would have been surrounded, and its own defeat and occupation at the hands of the Dominion would have been inevitable. Arguably, Sisko tricked the Romulans into acting in their own best interests. Of course, by the same token, he prevented the Romulan government from having the opportunity to make its own foreign policy decisions -- a clear violation of the noninterference provisions of the Federation Charter mentioned in "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges."
Should Sisko have done what he did? I don't know. Like I said, I think it really depends on how one evaluates the extraordinary circumstances that surrounded his actions. I agree with other posters who have said that it is important to hang on to our principles when things get tough or when we are tempted to disregard them in the name of expediency or national defense. And I strongly agree that actions akin to Sisko's, even if they are undertaken by an agent of the government in reaction to an extraordinary circumstance, should not come to represent fundamental policy. But I also think that extraordinary circumstances mean that situations like this have to be juged on a case-by-case basis. It is very possible that Sisko's actions were necessary without being in any way good or right.
If it was me? I would probably have done what Sisko did. I would have served my country as needed to protect it from an existential threat. I would have served out my tour of duty. And then I would have insisted that I be charged with being an accomplice to murder and obstruction of justice in a court of law. I would want it all to be done in secret and for word of what I had done not to leak to the Romulans, but I would also have not wanted myself not to pay for my choices.
Well, it seems to me that one of the first things we have to do in evaluating Sisko's actions in "In the Pale Moonlight" and in drawing comparisons from his actions to real-life analogies is recognize that Sisko's circumstances were extraordinary. The stakes involved were quite literally so high as to render the situation very obviously one that only very, very rarely manifests itself in real life: The complete enslavement of Sisko's entire society and of all neighboring societies. To try to take Sisko's situation and apply it to a current dilemma facing the United States is, frankly, absurd; the United States and its allies do not face any existential threats (with the possible exception of global climate change). So something we need right off the bat to acknowledge is that Sisko's example simply does not apply to us, and never will unless our society finds itself facing extinction. The only times in the history of the United States I can think of when it might have applied to us are the Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War, frankly.
The next thing I think is important to keep in mind is, simply, this: Morality is not defined by exceptional circumstances. Morality is defined by the circumstances that typically exist. So to argue that Sisko's actions constitute a fundamental indictment of the entire Federation and of its values and its billions of citizens seems, I think, an act of extreme hyperbole. An important facet it consider here is that Sisko's actions do not represent standard Federation policy. Every indication that we have is that, in the vast majority of cases, the Federation is a state that respects and protects the rights of the individual. Sisko's actions, in other words, are not a fundamental element of the organization of Federation society; that represent a break with Federation law and tradition. Sisko's actions, in short, are not representative of the Federation's basic nature -- they do not represent Federation policy. This is in remarkable contrast to the moral dilemmas facing the United States today, where Constitutional and human rights violations have become part of executive policy (Guantanemo Bay, denial of habeas corpus, domestic spying, the invasion and occupation of Iraq) and only recently have other branches of the government begun to step in to curb such abuses.
Were Sisko's actions right? No. Sisko himself acknowledges this, nonverbally if not verbally. The man would not have spent an hour getting himself drunk and confessing to a personal log, trying to talk himself into thinking it was okay if he actually believed it was. Was it justifiable? Possibly. It depends on whether or not one accepts the notion that the stakes were simply too high to allow what we would today call the human rights -- let's replace the phrase "human rights" with the phrase "sentient rights," since we're talking about aliens -- the sentient rights of Senator Vreenak, his bodyguards and pilot, and the holo-artist to stand in the way of securing a Federation victory in the war. Certainly a Federation defeat would have resulted in sentient rights violations at the hands of the Dominion on a scale never before seen in Star Trek -- genocide against the inhabitants of Earth, and the occupation and oppression of hundreds of Federation Member States and their colonies.
Another question to consider is what was best for the Romulan Star Empire. Sisko and Jadzia make a very compelling case early in the episode that the rights of the Romulan people would be best protected by the RSE joining the UFP and Klingon Empire in the war against the Dominion. A Dominion victory, of course, would have put Dominion forces where the Klingons, Cardassians, and Federation used to be -- the RSE would have been surrounded, and its own defeat and occupation at the hands of the Dominion would have been inevitable. Arguably, Sisko tricked the Romulans into acting in their own best interests. Of course, by the same token, he prevented the Romulan government from having the opportunity to make its own foreign policy decisions -- a clear violation of the noninterference provisions of the Federation Charter mentioned in "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges."
Should Sisko have done what he did? I don't know. Like I said, I think it really depends on how one evaluates the extraordinary circumstances that surrounded his actions. I agree with other posters who have said that it is important to hang on to our principles when things get tough or when we are tempted to disregard them in the name of expediency or national defense. And I strongly agree that actions akin to Sisko's, even if they are undertaken by an agent of the government in reaction to an extraordinary circumstance, should not come to represent fundamental policy. But I also think that extraordinary circumstances mean that situations like this have to be juged on a case-by-case basis. It is very possible that Sisko's actions were necessary without being in any way good or right.
If it was me? I would probably have done what Sisko did. I would have served my country as needed to protect it from an existential threat. I would have served out my tour of duty. And then I would have insisted that I be charged with being an accomplice to murder and obstruction of justice in a court of law. I would want it all to be done in secret and for word of what I had done not to leak to the Romulans, but I would also have not wanted myself not to pay for my choices.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Well stated SCI, and well thought out. But I am retired from the military and I believe there are more threats to the UNITED STATES and EUROPE than just global warming. Chamberland, as late as 1936, didn't see the threats to his own country until it was almost to late.
But in this PC enviroment of today, I could see how many might believe all is peaceful in the world...Kumbaya, put our hands together and roast marshmellows. Thank God the best people like this can do is put out record albums and make idiotic movies about Las Vegas casinos.
Rob
Scorpio
Thank you very much.
Oh, sure, there are threats. But there's a big difference between a threat and an existential threat. The United States, whilst it certainly faces a number of threats to its national security, does not face any existential threat today.
That particular British Prime Minister's name was Neville Chamberlain, not Chamberland. And while I agree that it's important to learn from Chamberlain's example and avoid appeasement, it's also important not to exaggerate threats. Every hostile foreign leader is not a potential Adolf Hitler -- both in terms of ambition and in terms of capacity.
I don't believe that anyone has claimed that all is peaceful in the world. Between a planetary food crisis, major econonmic crises facing most of the world's countries, renewed tensions between the US/Europe and Russia, the war in Iraq, the rise of Iran to the status of a major regional power with the fall of Iraq after the war, the perennial Israel/Palestine conflict, the rise of China, constant tensions between India and Pakistan, the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, domestic conflicts within Pakistan, oil profiteering, the continued rule of Vladimir Putin, conflicts in South Africa, Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Kenya, North Korea constantly trying to scare people into giving them food in exchange for not dicking around with the Bomb, conflicts between Hugo Chavez and Colombia, and insecure borders, the United States and its allies currently face a fairly large number of conflicts that are or have the potential to become serious national security threats. And all this to say nothing of the continuing problem of al Qaeda.
But it's also important to have a sense of proportionality. No conflict we face is as dire as, say, the invasion of the United States and the sacking of Washington in the War of 1812, or as the Civil War. No threat force the United States currently faces is known or suspected to have the potential to actually pose a threat to the very existence of the United States.
As you may have guessed, I do not accept that premise—mostly because it doesn't ask the fundamental question: Why?
Despite the reasonable slant Dax put upon it when playing the devil's advocate role early on in the story, it's quite clear from historical precedent that the Romulans do not allow anyone to violate their borders without a sharp check at the very least. What could change such policy, even temporarily? Certainly not just their dislike of the Federation—a people with whom they were clearly willing to ally only a couple of years before. Hell, they'd even thrown a Tal Shiar fleet at the Dominion in conjunction with the Obsidian Order, only to have the effort, as Sisko might say, "blow up in" their faces.
Frankly, it's apparent that the Romulans signed the non-aggression pact not because they thought they'd found a new ally in their ongoing conflict with the UFP, but to buy themselves time at their erstwhile allies' expense. The Dominion presented them with the same option they had the rest of the Alpha Quadrant in an attempt to isolate the Federation/Klingon Alliance, and the ever-opportunistic Romulans jumped on it, because it also served their purposes. Then they hit the jackpot: The UFP mined the wormhole and left the participants far more evenly matched than the Dominion had intended.
Dax, as herself, had said something interesting, in response to Bashir's comments about bringing them into the fight:
"That's the last thing the Romulans want. Think about it ... they're in the perfect position. They get to sit back and watch as their biggest rivals slug it out in a long, bloody war. No one's threatening their interests. Why should they risk their necks? There's simply no reason for them to get involved in our war—no reason at all..."
She's quite right: While the Federation and Klingons are holding their own, or even gradually losing a war of attrition, the Romulans can afford to bide their time, build up their own forces—anyone who thinks their economy hadn't been on a war footing (producing ships and losing none, note) since before the conflict began is off in La La Land—and watch things play out.
But what if, suddenly, the Federation and Klingons were losing the war far too quickly for the Romulans' taste—as occurred with the should-never-have-happened loss of Betazed?
Now the equation's changed ... and on both Romulus and Deep Space Nine, two plus two equals four—while two minus two leaves the Romulans all by their lonesome. And, as I’ve said above, the Praetor’s mom didn’t raise no dummies.
Here's an interesting point for those who claim that the Federation was on the very brink of defeat, and with no help forthcoming: The Romulans, upon learning that their senator had been assassinated (and having scrutinized the damaged Cardassian optolythic data-rod to learn that the Founders had nefarious plans for them), attacked the Dominion in force on a broad front only hours (or at most days) afterward. Now we're all agreed, I'm sure, both that the Romulans are a subtle, clever people, and know the lay of the land pretty damned well. Does it seem likely that they would throw caution to the four winds (or in their case, elements, if you're a Duane fan) and hurl themselves wholeheartedly into a conflict they'd purportedly not wanted and for which they were not prepared? Would not the prudent thing at that point have been to rapidly redeploy their navy so as to preclude any easy aggressive move against them, all while continuing to negotiate (with both sides) as they had been)?
Instead, they attacked.
Why is that? Were they truly in a heedless fury at the loss of just a few men and a sense of outrage at the Dominion's "betrayal"? That's so unlikely as to be easily dismissed, knowing Romulan tendencies as we do.
Or is it far more likely instead, that, rather than having been fooled by The Sisko/Garak Gambit or infuriated at the Dominion's actions, they'd always intended to come in on the Federation's side, once their plans were fully-wrought ... and this just pushed up their timetable a few months, weeks or even days? [Perhaps they, too, were caught out of position, metaphorically speaking, insofar as their schedule was concerned, when the Tenth Fleet screwed up and allowed Betazed's capture: They'd expected the Federation and Klingons to put up a better fight and give them a little more time to complete their preparation for extensive fleet operations.] I mean, logistically and logically speaking, one does not launch an assault on a broad front with overwhelming force, transferring from a primarily defensive posture to one of offense, in a matter of hours—unless that contingency is not only in place, but has been considered a viable option for quite some time.
In short, the Romulans had hoped to sit things out as long as they could, and then jump in once the deployment of their forces would be rapidly and devastatingly decisive. They planned to expel a wearied Dominion from the Alpha Quadrant, and then dictate the postwar galaxy to a prostrate Klingon Empire and a greatly weakened Federation. Frankly, it was an excellent plan. It was, from their pragmatic perspective (as I’ve said before about Sisko), the smart thing to do. [Hell, it's been argued by certain cynical historians that the U.S. did exactly that to Britain in World War Two, and Pearl Harbor hastened our entry into the conflict.] To see it in any other way, in my opinion, is to paint Romulans as rather myopic, or even stupid … and we all know they’re anything but.
Vreenak was established as a highly influential guy who was, seemingly, utterly opposed to the participation of the Empire in the current conflict ... and yet Sisko actually gave him pause more than once during their conversation. Perhaps, on further reflection during the trip home, he would have thought, You know, Sisko's an arrogant fool, but his position has a great deal of validity. This becomes even more likely a happenstance when one considers the military situation as it stood.
[Hell, for that matter, couldn't the Emissary have boarded Vreenak's shuttle, flown him into the wormhole, and had the Prophets show his skeptical ass what would happen if the Romulans didn't enter the war—assuming the Prophets cooperated, of course? They were willing to whack 2,800 starships on Sisko's behalf when he implored their aid. Can we seriously think that a pantheon of beings called "The Prophets" would have denied him a simple vision of the most likely possible future? Even assuming that such is beyond their capabilities (though we have no reason to think it is), scrutiny of their own timeline clearly isn't. They could simply have shown a true vision of Romulan participation in the war. Would it have convinced Vreenak? Perhaps not. But it was certainly logical—a better, cleaner option (and one that had a legitimate chance of success) than the scummy little deception Sisko tried.]
In conclusion: The help the Federation required was probably already on the verge of being given. Sisko sold his soul when it was ultimately unnecessary.
If one’s available information and a gut feeling justified reprehensible action, well … that would mean every idiot with an urge could do as he liked. It's patently obvious that Sisko did the smart thing. The idea, though, that he did the good, the right or even the necessary thing has not been (and will never be) established, because it just ain't so.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Sci said:
"You realize I can't authorize a thing like this on my own. I have to clear it with Starfleet Command."
Since he proceeded, that means Sisko received an endorsement for his attempt to deceive the Romulans from his superiors at Starfleet. It's highly doubtful such a potentially beneficial or disastrous action was decided upon by, say, Commodore Smith or Rear Admiral Jones vis-a-vis upper echelons. At the very least, we must assume that high-ranking flag officers made the decision ... and it's not unreasonable to speculate that it was run by either the C-'n'-C, the Federation Council, or both.
While I agree things would certainly have sucked tremendously, the above has by no means been reasonably established. It's a speculation based on a single conversation between Weyoun and Dukat, one later refuted canonically by the female Founder's assertion that the former would rule over territories that included Earth once the war had been concluded. A Founder trumps both a Vorta and a Cardassian.
We have more evidence that genocide against the Founders was imminent. The Federation Council refused to provide an antidote to a plague with which Section 31, supposedly a rogue organization, infected them before the war even began (cf. "Paradise Lost" and "Broken Link").
Which is largely if not entirely immaterial in the face of violating their rights to self-determination.
I find the above positions mutually exclusive. What you've just said in essence, Sci, is that your should hang on to your principles when it gets tough, but not when it gets really tough.
As I've said before, such makes morality an affectation.
That's like having your philosophical cake and eating it, too, Sci. I must, unfortunately, take the cake.
In other words, you would have acted wrongly, but then manned up as best you could. I can, thus, respect Captain Sci somewhat more than I can Captain Sisko.
The Romulans are on war footing all the time . . . they keep most of their ships deployed along the Neutral Zone, but that doesn't mean that they're planning to attack, only that they prepared if one should come.
Sisko says nothing about how much damage that they had done or how many ships they deployed, only that they had hit 15 bases. For all we know, it could have been major bases, shipyards, or a few supply depots that were lightly defended.
In short, Sisko couldn't see the future, or even be asked to do so. He was facing annihilation at the hands of the Dominion, and it was clearly established that the Romulans were allowing the Dominion to complete that goal . . . even if not, they were biding their time and playing fast and loose with millions of Federation and Klingon lives.
As I said before, Picard committed a moral act and billions of people paid with their lives. Sisko lied. That's all he did. Garak assassinated Vreenak and killed Tolar. If your hypothesis is correct and the Romulans were going to come in anyway, then all he's guilty of is lying.
JM1776:
I agree with much of what you’ve written. I’ve always thought that the Romulans sighed the NAP for two reasons. First, I think they might have wanted to see the Federation bloodied and defeated, and to see each side’s forces depleted, but also out of fear of engaging the Dominion on its own. Remember that the Romulans had access to all the Federations intel about the Dominion, and then tried to destroy the wormhole to prevent Dominion incursion into the Alpha Quadrant.
What I disagree with, and is a basic premise of why those who feel Sisko shouldn’t have made the decision he did, is telling in the result of the new alliance. When the Romulans joined the Federation and it's allies, the bleeding was merely stemmed. They were more competitive, but were still losing the war and were being beaten back on most fronts. If they weren’t winning the war with the Romulans, they certainly were not winning without them. It was the fallout of the Cardassian revolt against the Dominion that heartened them and really turned the tide at the very last.
So to say that Sisko was acting out of his deep fear rather than a very reasonable expectation or analysis that the war would be lost is simply not accurate.
Also, why is it reasonable to allow the Romulans to wait out the Dominion until the Federation forces are so depleted that they would never be able to regain a balance of power once the Dominion was defeated, if you could expect that to happen at all?
I agree with much of what you’ve written. I’ve always thought that the Romulans sighed the NAP for two reasons. First, I think they might have wanted to see the Federation bloodied and defeated, and to see each side’s forces depleted, but also out of fear of engaging the Dominion on its own. Remember that the Romulans had access to all the Federations intel about the Dominion, and then tried to destroy the wormhole to prevent Dominion incursion into the Alpha Quadrant.
What I disagree with, and is a basic premise of why those who feel Sisko shouldn’t have made the decision he did, is telling in the result of the new alliance. When the Romulans joined the Federation and it's allies, the bleeding was merely stemmed. They were more competitive, but were still losing the war and were being beaten back on most fronts. If they weren’t winning the war with the Romulans, they certainly were not winning without them. It was the fallout of the Cardassian revolt against the Dominion that heartened them and really turned the tide at the very last.
So to say that Sisko was acting out of his deep fear rather than a very reasonable expectation or analysis that the war would be lost is simply not accurate.
Also, why is it reasonable to allow the Romulans to wait out the Dominion until the Federation forces are so depleted that they would never be able to regain a balance of power once the Dominion was defeated, if you could expect that to happen at all?
Last edited:
No - regardless of anything else, he's an accessory to the murders of Senator Vreenak and his bodyguards. Tolar you can argue, but if Sisko hadn't included Garak in his "no-one gets into this area except me & Mr. Garak" order to Worf, and then specificially nodded Garak through when he said he would take a look around the Romulan ship, Garak would almost certainly never have had the opportunity to plant a bomb on the Romulans' ship without detection.
^^^^^^^
Because Garak was in on the deception. If Sisko knew about the planned murders, or had even tacitly approved them, he would not have gone into Garak's shop and beaten the crap out of him. The trip to Vreenak's shuttle was relayed to him as an intelligence gathering mission, which was why it was approved.
In the civilian world, authorizing a Break and Enter where somebody gets killed would make you guilty of felony murder. In the military world, if you send somebody on a covert op and they massacre a village full of people WITHOUT ORDERS then it is solely in the hands of the people that did the killing.
Garak is guilty of the murders. He planned them. He implemented them, and he did so without anybody's consent or approval. The blame (if one insists on laying any) lies with him and him alone for Vreenak's death.
Because Garak was in on the deception. If Sisko knew about the planned murders, or had even tacitly approved them, he would not have gone into Garak's shop and beaten the crap out of him. The trip to Vreenak's shuttle was relayed to him as an intelligence gathering mission, which was why it was approved.
In the civilian world, authorizing a Break and Enter where somebody gets killed would make you guilty of felony murder. In the military world, if you send somebody on a covert op and they massacre a village full of people WITHOUT ORDERS then it is solely in the hands of the people that did the killing.
Garak is guilty of the murders. He planned them. He implemented them, and he did so without anybody's consent or approval. The blame (if one insists on laying any) lies with him and him alone for Vreenak's death.
Really? And you know this how? The Romulans have been isolationists (as least from the Federation) for vast periods of the Star Trek timeline—between the Earth-Romulan War and "Balance of Terror" ... for the five decades between The Tomed Incident and "The Neutral Zone."
Now if you were to say "the Klingons are on a war footing all the time," I'd buy it. But in this case you're assuming facts not in evidence.
Which, of course, explains how they were able to so easily launch a 'defense' against the Dominion positions—positions, note, that are not along the Federation border, but rather the Cardassian.
I very much doubt if Sisko would have bothered mentioning what they'd already done in his log if the attacks were minor in nature. In addition, the Romulans would not formally declare war and then essentially piss over the fence onto the Cardassian gardenias. That would prove of little gain and invite a heavy counterstroke. "Fifteen bases" is clearly meant to imply a substantial commitment of resources and application of force. One has to assume that the Romulans shifted an enormous number of ships from the Federation border (since they now had a common enemy) to the Cardassian in a well-coordinated, well-planned, and long-prepared move.
You just said he "couldn't see the future," and then in the next sentence asserted that "he was facing annihilation."
The implication of the conversation between Dax and Bashir was that Jem'Hadar ships were cutting corners across the border individually or in small numbers to ambush a few Federation starships, not that entire fleets were moving across Romulan space unchecked.
In addition, what could the Romulans do, so long as the Dominion didn't get too absurd? They had a non-aggression pact in place, and the progression of their own plans required they turn a blind eye to the fact that the Dominion was not respecting their sovereignty. This is another indication that the Romulans couldn't have much liked the Dominion, but were, as you said above, biding their time, as Romulans do.
What do you want? They're Romulans. Their primary concern is with Romulan lives ... and if they could expel the Dominion and assume a preeminent place in the Alpha Quadrant without doing much at all, well ... they love it when a plan comes together.
This strategy allowed them to bleed every one of their enemies without taking any overt action. The fact that they're manipulative shits doesn't justify getting down in the mud with them, though—not when your personal values and those of your society purportedly preclude that.
It can definitely be argued that Picard made a tremendous mistake in not utilizing Hugh against the Borg. A de facto if not declared state of war exists between the Borg and every other society in the galaxy. There are no Borg civilians, so any part of the Collective is a legitimate military target.
Frankly, it's quite possible that Hugh would have volunteered to carry the virus if asked—a point the often-too-moralistic Picard missed.
Thus, we're agreed that Picard screwed up.
You are familiar with the term "accessory after the fact," aren't you?
In addition, Sisko ordered the distribution of a controlled substance to unauthorized parties, bribed Quark to keep Grathon Tolar out of prison, and endorsed Garak's free hand, which makes him in large measure responsible above and beyond his guilt as an accessory for Garak's actions.
You're right, I am assuming. And maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that everytime the Romulans show up, so does a Warbird or two. Sending the most powerful ships in your arsenal to the front lines of every conflict would indicate, at least to me, that you intend to act with military force, hence my conclusion.
The Romulans would have been skeptical of any treaty. Just because they had enough warships along the border to launch a preemptive strike against the Dominion, does not mean that they are preparing or even planning to go to war, they're just hedging their bets.
Perhaps you're right. Or perhaps Sisko was so buoyed by the mention of even a minor victory, that he felt it was worth mentioning. He does say that it was a "huge victory for the good guys" but it's unclear as to whether he's talking about the destroyed bases or their entry into the war. Perhaps both.
You imply a contradiction where none exists. The Romulans, by their nature, are shadowy and hard to read. To have been able to accurately predict their future actions would have been nearly impossible. The Dominion War was simple math, as outlayed by Vreenak in their conversation on DS9. The Dominion had more ships and more men, and could build and grow both faster than either the Federation or the Klingons. Aside from retaking DS9, Starfleet had not had one meaningful victory during the war, and indeed had suffered several crushing defeats. The math was obvious. Oh sure, there could have been an extraordinary even here and there, but I, personnally, wouldn't give a hoot in hell for an officer that just sat around and waited for that to happen.
It's never made clear just how much Sisko did or didn't do to Garak after everything had settled. Perhaps he told Starfleet, and perhaps he didn't. If you take Hollow Men as canon (personally, not in terms of how Paramount sees it) then Starfleet Command was notified and decided not to pursue the matter any further. That's a command decision, and then this becomes not an endictment of Sisko, but of one of the entire Federation.
The Romulans would have been skeptical of any treaty. Just because they had enough warships along the border to launch a preemptive strike against the Dominion, does not mean that they are preparing or even planning to go to war, they're just hedging their bets.
Perhaps you're right. Or perhaps Sisko was so buoyed by the mention of even a minor victory, that he felt it was worth mentioning. He does say that it was a "huge victory for the good guys" but it's unclear as to whether he's talking about the destroyed bases or their entry into the war. Perhaps both.
You imply a contradiction where none exists. The Romulans, by their nature, are shadowy and hard to read. To have been able to accurately predict their future actions would have been nearly impossible. The Dominion War was simple math, as outlayed by Vreenak in their conversation on DS9. The Dominion had more ships and more men, and could build and grow both faster than either the Federation or the Klingons. Aside from retaking DS9, Starfleet had not had one meaningful victory during the war, and indeed had suffered several crushing defeats. The math was obvious. Oh sure, there could have been an extraordinary even here and there, but I, personnally, wouldn't give a hoot in hell for an officer that just sat around and waited for that to happen.
It's never made clear just how much Sisko did or didn't do to Garak after everything had settled. Perhaps he told Starfleet, and perhaps he didn't. If you take Hollow Men as canon (personally, not in terms of how Paramount sees it) then Starfleet Command was notified and decided not to pursue the matter any further. That's a command decision, and then this becomes not an endictment of Sisko, but of one of the entire Federation.
Not so.
The allies established a foothold in Cardassian space at Chin'toka, and in addition retook the Benzite system. We also hear absolutely nothing about further territorial losses once the Romulans enter the fight—until the Breen join the Dominion Axis, which is not applicable to this discussion. The tide had turned in the Alliance's favor.
It's apparent from the conversations between the various commanders during the latter stages of this period that they have the Dominion effectively bottled up, but are reluctant to commit the vast resources necessary to finish the war, knowing the frightful cost.
During this period, thus, the Allies are retaining the territory they possess, reclaiming that which they've lost and a bit of the enemy's, as well, talking about the concerted push necessary to defeat the Dominion, and holding the line across the board. That constitutes winning the war.
At the very worst, the Romulan entry into the conflict had produced a stalemate—one that would have resulted in eventual Federation victory once the Cardassians had had enough of Dominion bullying, and rebelled.
Your conclusion is specious, considering how often we've seen a Warbird and a shot is never fired. They're obviously psychological weapons as well as physical ones. Their sheer size speaks to this.
Thank you for supporting my point. "Hedging their bets" means they have a plan to go to war if it becomes necessary ... and since it's obvious that it was becoming or had become necessary, lest they be isolated against the Dominion ...
Interestingly enough, I always thought Sisko's comment concerning "a huge victory for the good guys" referred to their entry into the war, not the assaults along the Cardassian border. That doesn't alter the connotation of the comment about "fifteen bases" in context, though—which seems to go to the immediate commitment of massive Romulan resources to the war effort.
And on that point, we fundamentally disagree. Though the Romulans are often unpredictable, that's because they play their cards close to the vest and examine their alternatives carefully before acting.
But once Betazed had fallen, their viable long-term options had dwindled essentially to zero: It was either support the Federation and Klingons very soon, whilst they still had an effective fighting force ... or watch them destroyed and, a few years later, stand alone against the Dominion, with essentially no chance of success.
Then you don't give a "hoot in hell" for every other Starfleet officer who did their duty and fought gallantly, but didn't think of running a scam so as to trick another power into the war?
And we're back to the same question: Do the ends justify the means? Can one uphold one's values by subverting them? Is a single soul worth a trillion lives?
We're not going to make any progress, here, mostly because our answers are in some measure predicated on our belief systems.
A fair point—as far as it goes.
The fact that Starfleet might have shined on his actions would make them no less criminal—just unprosecuted. "Inter arma enim silent leges."
Er ... the phrase, not the episode.
I don't, in the least—which is by no means a condemnation of the work itself. I read and enjoyed it.
And that's another conversation entirely.
^^^^^^^
If they were coming in anyway, which you postulate, then they weren't "tricked" into anything. While Sisko's actions are still morally wrong, they are then also not a grand deception, either.
As for the deaths of Federation troops who "died for freedom" I don't believe that anybody really goes out thinking like that. Wars may be started for grand ideals, but the actual killing and dying are done for different reasons altogether. If you kill someone in battle, you did it to save yourself. Kill or be killed. Conversely, nobody throws themselves on a hand grenade for freedom, they do it to save their buddies, knowing that it will kill them in the process.
To quote the line from Black Hawk Down: "It's about the man next to you. That's all it is."
Assuming that they were dying for Freedom, then I tend to agree with Admiral Ross on that matter. And yes, a do believe that one life is worth less than a trillion, even if it's mine.
As for the Federation thing, I've always found Roddenberry's vision to be a little too optimistic, but you're are correct when you say that it's a different matter for another time.
If they were coming in anyway, which you postulate, then they weren't "tricked" into anything. While Sisko's actions are still morally wrong, they are then also not a grand deception, either.
As for the deaths of Federation troops who "died for freedom" I don't believe that anybody really goes out thinking like that. Wars may be started for grand ideals, but the actual killing and dying are done for different reasons altogether. If you kill someone in battle, you did it to save yourself. Kill or be killed. Conversely, nobody throws themselves on a hand grenade for freedom, they do it to save their buddies, knowing that it will kill them in the process.
To quote the line from Black Hawk Down: "It's about the man next to you. That's all it is."
Assuming that they were dying for Freedom, then I tend to agree with Admiral Ross on that matter. And yes, a do believe that one life is worth less than a trillion, even if it's mine.
As for the Federation thing, I've always found Roddenberry's vision to be a little too optimistic, but you're are correct when you say that it's a different matter for another time.
My second point is also valid. That is, why is it reasonable to allow the Romulans to wait out the Dominion until the Federation forces are so depleted that they would never be able to regain a balance of power once the Dominion was defeated, if you could expect that to happen at all?
