Starfleet needed the Klingon war to happen

[Groppler Zorn]

I know Michael’s role in the Klingon war has been discussed in another thread but I was hoping to discuss the longer term implications of the war and look at her role in that, and what her mutiny and the war would mean for starfleet (and the federation) going forward.

Ok so there’s been a century of silence from the Klingons by the time of DSC. Starfleet has had nobody to test its mettle and they have become too comfortable and overconfident.

This is reflected on the Shenzhou and the complete breakdown of discipline in Georgiou’s command crew, notably her first officer.

So I’m thinking that the Klingon war is something that starfleet needed to happen (not wanted, mind you, but needed). This is because discipline had become so lax on starfleet ships that officers like Michael could try to take advantage of a weak captain like Georgiou and start a war.

I don’t want to blame Georgiou entirely for Michael’s mutiny. She is only responsible for Michael's training, so only her wilful insubordination and unprofessionalism is Georgiou’s fault (don’t forget Kirk’s trial in TUC where it’s established that the conduct of a starship crew is the responsibility of their captain). But, I think it speaks to the state of starfleet more broadly in the DSC era that this kind of “happy go lucky” attitude was prominent and it led to officers like Michael making rash decisions and following through with ideas that weren’t thought out.

I think Starfleet had become complacent with no Klingons to keep them on their toes. Burnham actually did the federation a favour by landing on the beacon and giving the Klingons an excuse to start shooting.

This forced starfleet to be much more militaristic as the 23rd century progressed and we don’t hear of another bonafide mutineer (well, close) until Ro Laren a century later.

The Klingon war. It’s a good thing.

 

[dahj]

Starfleet has had nobody to test its mettle

They're not freakin' Romulans to need to "test their mettle" every few centuries...

The Klingon war. It’s a good thing.

Wrong.
He're some remedial education in the form of a song:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Groppler Zorn]

They're not freakin' Romulans to need to "test their mettle" every few centuries...



Wrong.
He're some remedial education in the form of a song:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

And yet, Q uses that as a justification for introducing starfleet to the Borg a century later as they measure themselves against the “pitiful” enemies they’d encountered so far - the romulans, the Klingons...

And obviously I agree with the song haha! But I think starfleet needed some conflict so as to avoid stagnation

 

[cultcross]

Q's point wasn't that Starfleet needed a real enemy to fight, but that they were becoming complacent in their apparent mastery of space travel and exploration, and weren't prepared for what was out there beyond their borders - "you are about to move into areas of the galaxy containing wonders more incredible than you can possibly imagine - and terrors to freeze your soul." "It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
What he wasn't advocating was regular war to 'toughen up' or 'test' Starfleet. Personally I'm not at all fond of the idea that civilisations 'need' wars to stop them becoming 'soft'. You see it in attitudes toward young people today, contrasting the experience of the WWII generation with the iPad generation and heavily implying that an existential war for survival is the better of the two.

 

[INACTIVERedDwarf]

The idea of conflict as breeding a finer type of human culture was heavily promoted by 19th century aristocratic militarists in Europe. We know where that led. Star Trek contrasted the Federation with such societies that casually treat life as a sacrifice. The Federation was willing to rise to meet any challenge, but not to initiate them,

What Q, an unreliable narrator, was trying to say, was that Federation society (which Q seemed to surreptitiously admire) was in danger of becoming complacent about it's place in the universe. If he was some kind of cosmic Nazi eugenicist, toppling civilizations that aren't worthy, would have have warned the Federation about the Borg?

 

[Groppler Zorn]

they were becoming complacent in their apparent mastery of space travel and exploration, and weren't prepared for what was out there beyond their borders

This is kinda what I was getting at - although I didn’t express it very well, I didn’t mean for my post to be so negative in tone!

Basically I’m suggesting that starfleet was similarly complacent and the net effect of the war was that they learned to be more cautious. Keeping officers like Michael on a shorter leash, being more by the book. Maybe that’s where the attitude of Captain Esteban of the Grissom came from? The war would still be in living memory for someone his age at the time of TSFS.

The idea of conflict as breeding a finer type of human culture was heavily promoted by 19th century aristocratic militarists in Europe. We know where that led.

Reading my post back it comes across as unnecessarily dictator-y which wasn’t what I was going for haha! I only meant that starfleet had stopped worrying about the Klingons and that had meant that they didn’t consider the consequences of a possible engagement with them. This was Georgiou’s failing and admiral Anderson’s failing.

But, a stricter starfleet with a more militaristic mindset wouldn’t have allowed an officer like Michael to flourish to the point where she could mutiny, assault her captain, and put everyone’s lives at risk.

I’m sort of trying to say that necessity is the mother of invention (in terms of invention of regulations and behaviours in this case) rather than saying wars make societies better

 

[INACTIVERedDwarf]

Ah, I get you - well, what Q was saying isn't too different, I think.

There is a moment in the anime One Piece when a nice guy pirate has one of his crew shoot an enemy who is threatening a child. When the bandits who have been terrorising the town look shocked that the nice guy pirate would kill someone in cold blood, he explains "you pick up a sword against someone and you are taking your life into your hands".

The idea wasn't of punishment or judgement, but simple fact; that he should expect that attempted murder makes you open to any kind of violence, and that the high seas aren't some place where you can treat like a place to casually intimidate others.

Thats something about "personal responsibility" that I think sometimes gets lost. It isn't about who deserves what, it's just that if you embark on something dangerous, you need to understand that there could be consequences, irrelevant of 'deserving'; the bandit didn't deserve to die, nobody does. I think Q's point was similar; not that the Borg were what the Federation "needed" or "deserved", but that if they wanted to continue to be a civilization that pushed the limits of science/exploration, they should be aware that people can die in such an undertaking, like climbing K2, and be prepared on a personal level that being an ensign in sickbay won't necessarily be safe.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

if they wanted to continue to be a civilization that pushed the limits of science/exploration, they should be aware that people can die in such an undertaking, like climbing K2, and be prepared on a personal level that being an ensign in sickbay won't necessarily be safe.

I definitely think this is something that starfleet seems to have lost in DSC - at least in Vulcan Hello. It’s almost the opposite of the view Pike has of starfleet in the Kelvin timeline.

Burnham seems to have a “what’s the worst that could happen” attitude which results in her landing on the beacon. The following attitude from Georgiou and Anderson shows a “It’ll be fine, we’ll talk to them, we come in peace after all” kind of approach which leads to lots of people getting killed.

Given than starfleet does become more militaristic after the war and remains so up to at least the turn of the 24th century I’d suggest that the war forced them to realise that they had to consider the consequences of their actions in greater depth. It also makes you wonder how starfleet would have dealt with Georgiou had she survived - the commander of a mutineer must have some awkward questions to answer...

 

[Spot261]

At the risk of being an outlier here, Picard actually expressed something similar when he referred to Starfleet having had a "kick in their complacency" as a result of their exposure to the Borg, although really @cultcross 's interpretation of that is vastly preferable to me than the archaic and commonplace idea of worth and status being found in trial by combat, either on an individual or a collective level. As pointed out many civilisations have structured their societies around such values and it rarely if ever results in enlightened forward thinking or egalitarian cultures. On the contrary it tends to promote stratification, ignorance and an inflexibility which harms not only the individuals expected to live under such conditions but the capacity to grow, learn, develop and ironically to fight wars on anything other than one's own terms. The British Empire could arguably be said to have fell in no small part because of exactly the sort of mindset we are discussing.

In reality civilisations tend to get good at fighting wars really quickly, no matter the societal starting point or technological disparity. For better or for worse it is in our nature to have a substantial capacity for organised violence and it's hardly something that warrants regular exposure for the sake of practise.

In the specific though what makes you say Georgiou was a weak captain? On the contrary I saw her as a leader strong enough to nurture the best in her crew, to be able to draw on their talents and individuality as assets without feeling threatened. In peacetime and war this is almost always a good thing and not one captain to date has not at some point lost control of their command or some part thereof to an underling.

It happened to Kirk, to Picard, to Sbisko, to Janeway, so why should Georgiou so why should Georgiou be singled out as weak where they are not?

 

[Spot261]

They're not freakin' Romulans to need to "test their mettle" every few centuries...



Wrong.
He're some remedial education in the form of a song:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Do Romulans ever actually, y'know, win wars?

 

[Groppler Zorn]

In the specific though what makes you say Georgiou was a weak captain? On the contrary I saw her as a leader strong enough to nurture the best in her crew, to be able to draw on their talents and individuality as assets without feeling threatened. In peacetime and war this is almost always a good thing and not one captain to date has not at some point lost control of their command or some part thereof to an underling.

I think “weak” is a poor choice of words on my part here.

I think Michael perceives her as being weak by not giving the Klingons a “Vulcan hello” - which convinces her that she should set herself up as the saviour of the entire federation.

My view of Georgiou is that she doesn’t do a great job training Michael (a fact she admits to her shortly before she dies). Michael is opinionated, wilful and insubordinate - qualities one wouldn’t expect in an executive officer who had been doing the job seven years(!)

Granted Picard and the rest lost command to an underling at various points but all of those instances had “Star Trek” explanations - alien possessions, dr soong, etc. None of them were a result of premeditated mutiny.

Given that the conduct of a crew is a direct reflection of their captain, I’d suggest that the casual, informal tone on the shenzhou bridge (where alien races like kelpiens are casually racially profiled - “kelpiens are always anxious about something”) represents a flaw in Georgiou’s command style that is reflective of the broader attitude in starfleet at the time (so Michael’s mutiny isn’t entirely Georgiou’s fault).

Ultimately I don’t think she was able to nurture the best in Michael as she failed to appreciate the chain of command after 7 years of serving with Georgiou as her executive officer. She failed to appreciate that Michael needed to be reined in way more than she was and she needed a much firmer hand. Also she never learned to ignore Michael when she did the Gowron “intense eyes” to try and hypnotise people into doing what she wanted (asks to leave the bridge in a battle and says “it’s relevant”, then does wide Hypno-toad eyes).

Georgiou was perhaps a poor judge of character who was too forgiving of Michael - maybe she felt sorry for her? She also seemed to quick to be convinced by Michael’s arguments when they were essentially snap judgments based on little to no actual evidence. This was ultimately Georgiou’s undoing as it led to her XO staging a (one person) mutiny and it got her killed.

I appreciate that my take on this may prove unpopular... *braces self*

 

[cultcross]

The British Empire could arguably be said to have fell in no small part because of exactly the sort of mindset we are discussing.

Not to mention the first world war was born of the general tendency toward this mindset.

Given than starfleet does become more militaristic after the war and remains so up to at least the turn of the 24th century I’d suggest that the war forced them to realise that they had to consider the consequences of their actions in greater depth.

While I can't argue the fact that Starfleet came to be portrayed as more militaristic post DSC, especially through the movies, and I'd also buy that the Klingon War (and ongoing hostilities) was part of the reason for this, I wouldn't describe it as Starfleet being 'forced to realise' some uncomfortable truth. On the contrary, I would characterise Starfleet's response to the Klingon threat as unbecoming of their values, and born of fear and xenophobia. This is highlighted in particular in TUC but there are certainly suggestions in TOS that Starfleet is fighting the Klingons for less than noble reasons (Errand of Mercy, A Private Little War). I think where we disagree here is that you see Starfleet's kick toward a more militaristic stance as a good or at least necessary thing whereas I see it as a mistake that took half a century to correct.

I think Michael perceives her as being weak by not giving the Klingons a “Vulcan hello” - which convinces her that she should set herself up as the saviour of the entire federation.

I don't think she sees Georgiou as weak at all, only that she doesn't 'understand the Klingons like I do'. In Michael's view, this is the moment where, in extremis, we bend our rules to survive. Allegorically, she is the person advocating for waterboarding the terrorist for the greater good. Georgiou doesn't see it that way - she wants to stay true to what she is even when presented with existential challenge, something we would later associate with Picard. That is far from weak, and I'm not convinced Michael sees it that way.

My view of Georgiou is that she doesn’t do a great job training Michael (a fact she admits to her shortly before she dies). Michael is opinionated, wilful and insubordinate - qualities one wouldn’t expect in an executive officer who had been doing the job seven years(!)

Granted Picard and the rest lost command to an underling at various points but all of those instances had “Star Trek” explanations - alien possessions, dr soong, etc. None of them were a result of premeditated mutiny.

Given that the conduct of a crew is a direct reflection of their captain, I’d suggest that the casual, informal tone on the shenzhou bridge (where alien races like kelpiens are casually racially profiled - “kelpiens are always anxious about something”) represents a flaw in Georgiou’s command style that is reflective of the broader attitude in starfleet at the time (so Michael’s mutiny isn’t entirely Georgiou’s fault).

Ultimately I don’t think she was able to nurture the best in Michael as she failed to appreciate the chain of command after 7 years of serving with Georgiou as her executive officer. She failed to appreciate that Michael needed to be reined in way more than she was and she needed a much firmer hand. Also she never learned to ignore Michael when she did the Gowron “intense eyes” to try and hypnotise people into doing what she wanted (asks to leave the bridge in a battle and says “it’s relevant”, then does wide Hypno-toad eyes).

Georgiou was perhaps a poor judge of character who was too forgiving of Michael - maybe she felt sorry for her? She also seemed to quick to be convinced by Michael’s arguments when they were essentially snap judgments based on little to no actual evidence. This was ultimately Georgiou’s undoing as it led to her XO staging a (one person) mutiny and it got her killed.

On the contrary, I see Georgiou as trusting her XO. Ultimately it is the betrayal of that trust which presents the core conflict in their relationship in the pilot. Trust in those under your command is, to me, indicative of strong leadership, not weak. You set the direction, the goal, and expect and empower your staff to work toward that goal using their own strengths and abilities, without your direct instruction or micro managing. You trust them to take appropriate risks and find their own answers. In case you think this is naively civilian of me, I would counter that this idea is most succinctly expressed (and taught) by a US Navy submarine Captain.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

I think where we disagree here is that you see Starfleet's kick toward a more militaristic stance as a good or at least necessary thing whereas I see it as a mistake that took half a century to correct.

Fair point. I suppose I'm focusing on the idea that Starfleet needed to be careful not to recreate the conditions that led to an officer like Burnham thinking she was morally right to mutiny. Talking of TUC, would Valeris count as a mutineer?

she doesn't 'understand the Klingons like I do'

That's a problem with Michael. She doesn't really understand the Klingons at all. She's basing everything on her one (admittedly horrific) encounter with them. It takes AshVoq to make her realise that Klingons are people too. And I essentially mean 'weak' relative to the Klingons, or the Klingons would view Georgiou as 'weak' if she didn't comply with Michael's demands.

On the contrary, I see Georgiou as trusting her XO.

I'm not knocking Georgiou for trusting her XO - more that she misjudges Michael's character to such an extent that she trusts her that far and that blindly. I think Georgiou is a little enamoured with Burnham (not in a romantic way, but in more of a motherly way) and that blinded her to the deeper flaws in Michael's character - which I would argue is a flaw in Georgiou's character as a commander. I'd say the same about Sisko not seeing Eddington's betrayal coming and I love Sisko so much I'd marry him haha! I wouldn't have expected Georgiou to micromanage Burnham or anything like that, but I do think she gave her too much latitude during her time on the Shenzhou. Can we imagine Riker ever taking that action against Picard in s7 of TNG? Heck, it takes him almost the full episode where Picard has been replaced by the alien duplicate in s3 to overthrow the doppelganger - and that's only after he's consulted with everyone and soul-searched. This behaviour is repeated again only with more angst in 'The Pegasus'. Ok, I know it looks like I'm saying that all XOs should be the same - I'm not, honest! But, in a pseudo-military operation like Starfleet, you die before you mutiny. Georgiou should have had a greater awareness of Michael's character flaws after 7 years, but her affection for her first officer blinded her to that.

Mirror Georgiou also suffers from this motherly problem with Michael - probably even more so. The (perhaps ironic) difference is that at least Mirror Georgiou saw (Mirror) Michael's betrayal coming. Prime Georgiou was obviously taken in by Michael's irritating tendency to explain her own success rate.

 

[Nyotarules]

Starfleet needs to decide whether its a military operation or not ('we are explorers not soldiers' mantra) and stop pretending it is never the former and always the latter.

 

[cultcross]

. Talking of TUC, would Valeris count as a mutineer?

Strictly speaking no, but there is an interesting parallel there which I hadn't really noticed before, and reminds me of the producers' early comments that TUC was a 'touchstone' of sorts for DSC. Like Michael, Valeris and her co-conspirators also believed that they knew the Klingons better than their idiot bosses trying to extend an olive branch. They believed it so hard that they sacrificed what they valued to 'save' the Federation. Valeris says, rather blindly, "they conspired with us to assassinate their own chancellor, how trustworthy can they be?", while Azetbur's advisor says much the same of Starfleet. This is also paralleled in DSC - as Burnham was agitating for conflict in the Shenzhou, so T'Kuvma was agitating for conflict on the Ship of the Dead. Both sides were using the others' 'inevitable' untrustworthiness to bring about their self fulfilling prophecy of war.

 

[Spot261]

I think Michael perceives her as being weak by not giving the Klingons a “Vulcan hello” - which convinces her that she should set herself up as the saviour of the entire federation.

Personally I see her as strong for not giving into the temptation to do just that

Michael is opinionated, wilful and insubordinate - qualities one wouldn’t expect in an executive officer who had been doing the job seven years(!)

Oh Hi!

Seven years you say?

Granted Picard and the rest lost command to an underling at various points but all of those instances had “Star Trek” explanations - alien possessions, dr soong, etc. None of them were a result of premeditated mutiny.

They still lost command, regardless (although Sisko, Janeway and on at least one occasion Picard actually lost them for more mundane reasons) and the pedant in me is begging to point out Burnham's actions were neither premeditated nor, technically, mutiny.

Given that the conduct of a crew is a direct reflection of their captain, I’d suggest that the casual, informal tone on the shenzhou bridge (where alien races like kelpiens are casually racially profiled - “kelpiens are always anxious about something”) represents a flaw in Georgiou’s command style that is reflective of the broader attitude in starfleet at the time (so Michael’s mutiny isn’t entirely Georgiou’s fault).

We have no idea what the broader attitude of the time in starfleet was, we only see a very small snapshot of a couple of hours on one bridge prior to the events which caused the war. A bridge which is on a science vessel commanded by a combat hero whose own assessment of her style is it is about moving away from that militaristic past. Have you actually seen how much Kirk would indulge McCoy, Picard would tolerate Wesley, Worf or Data, Janeway would tolerate 7 of 9?

Ultimately I don’t think she was able to nurture the best in Michael as she failed to appreciate the chain of command after 7 years of serving with Georgiou as her executive officer. She failed to appreciate that Michael needed to be reined in way more than she was and she needed a much firmer hand.

Georgiou was perhaps a poor judge of character who was too forgiving of Michael - maybe she felt sorry for her? She also seemed to quick to be convinced by Michael’s arguments when they were essentially snap judgments based on little to no actual evidence. This was ultimately Georgiou’s undoing as it led to her XO staging a (one person) mutiny and it got her killed.

Or she was used to someone more akin to the much more effective Michael we see in later episodes who isn't acting bizarrely due to a very sudden, jarring and totally unexpected onset of PTSD? Again, we are seeing a very specific snapshot there which really doesn't inform us about the context or nature of the prior seven years where Burnham clearly thrived.

 

[The Wormhole]

This is because discipline had become so lax on starfleet ships that officers like Michael could try to take advantage of a weak captain like Georgiou and start a war.

You're operating under a false premise. Michael didn't start the war, T'Kuvma did, as evidenced by him outlining his entire master plan while Michael and Georgiou were drawing arrowheads in the sand.

This forced starfleet to be much more militaristic as the 23rd century progressed and we don’t hear of another bonafide mutineer (well, close) until Ro Laren a century later.

Starfleet was already pretty damn militaristic at the start of The Vulcan Hello compared to the other shows. Georgiou displays her diploma from a Starfleet military academy in her ready room, and are you seriously trying to say Admiral Anderson isn't militaristic?

Also, Ro Laren isn't a mutineer or anything close. While the exact nature of her crime has never been revealed, we know she was responsible for an incident that resulted in several on her away team getting killed. That's not mutiny, or even close.

 

[lawman]

Minor point of order: Michael had been serving on the Shenzou for seven years. That doesn't mean she had been first officer for seven years. If you trust the account in David Mack's novel Desperate Hours (non-canon, but it was informed by backstory from the producers, and they've said nothing on-screen to contradict it), she'd actually only been in that position for about a year, and in fact it was that promotion that caused some of the tension between her and Saru.

Beyond that... we can't generalize from one day on the Shenzou to the entirety of Starfleet. But in general, based on the ships (and stations) we've seen over the years, Starfleet has never been a bastion of strict military discipline. And, frankly, that's one of the things I like about it. The sense of collegiality is a feature, not a bug.

IOW...

We have no idea what the broader attitude of the time in starfleet was, we only see a very small snapshot of a couple of hours on one bridge prior to the events which caused the war. A bridge which is on a science vessel commanded by a combat hero whose own assessment of her style is it is about moving away from that militaristic past. Have you actually seen how much Kirk would indulge McCoy, Picard would tolerate Wesley, Worf or Data, Janeway would tolerate 7 of 9?

...this.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Personally I see her as strong for not giving into the temptation to do just that

I agree with you on this point. Michael obviously didn’t though - that was the problem. I think Georgiou trusted Burnham more than Burnham trusted Georgiou in that situation.

We have no idea what the broader attitude of the time in starfleet was

Fair point. I know I’m making some sweeping generalisations here - shame the war arc didn’t last longer so we could have seen more of starfleet

Michael didn't start the war,

Not individually, no - that’s not the point I was making (again, poor choice of words on my part). The war started because of things Burnham did - had she only done a flyby and not killed the torchbearer things may well have been different - no ascension of Voq, for instance.

are you seriously trying to say Admiral Anderson isn't militaristic

Well he’s not really on screen long enough to make an informed judgment on that before he’s blown to bits, but the first thing he wants to do is negotiate, not fight. He’s direct and he yells at Michael but I didn’t see him as overtly militaristic in the short amount of time he was on screen.

Ro Laren isn't a mutineer or anything close

Didn’t she disobey orders? (I genuinely can’t remember) I thought Riker got his chest all puffed up because she disobeyed orders and people died. Which is sort of like mutiny (on a superficial level). The point I was trying to make is that Michael led to changes in starfleet so that the closest thing to a mutineer after her was Ro. Or probably Eddington. More likely Eddington actually. Forget what I said about Ro lol!

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Michael has been serving on the Shenzou for seven years. That doesn't mean she had been first officer for seven years.

You know if you’re going to make reasoned, logical and well supported arguments I’m not playing haha!

Damn that’s a good point though. I’m assuming she’s been XO for 7 years - I guess I thought that’s why she was taken on in the first instance - thanks to her Vulcan science directorate training.

However - Georgiou thought she was ready for the centre seat after only a year? They didn’t even offer Riker a command after only a year (don’t forget he’d been captain DeSoto’s XO on the Hood before he was Picard’s XO)