The lack of a follow-up to "In the Pale Moonlight"

[Sean Aaron]

JM1776 said:We know only Sisko's slant on what the Maquis did ... and I imagine that those colonists who weren't very political (a group that might well have been a silent, huge majority, for all we know---a not unreasonable assumption, considering our general inclination to avoid trouble if possible) kept their noses to the grindstone, and hoped that they'd never have to deal with any of this unpleasantness---as opposed to the political loudmouths, whose voices were all out of proportion to their numbers.

[I assume you've noticed by now that this "they asked for it simply by being there" argument isn't going to get you anywhere. ]

Anyone who would stay in harms way like that after a political settlement has to be political to some degree, if only in the "I'm not leaving my home over what some bureaucrats on Earth decided!" kind of way. I don't see how it's possible not to be; even if you weren't to start you would probably become political if your community were under constant attack by colonists of a former enemy.

Obviously a topic for another thread, but there should have been no shared colonies as part of the peace treaty. It would have been better to have a cease fire an maintain a state of war.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

Despite the Federation-Cardassian War having been going on and off for over ten years? I think most in Command and in the Federation Government wanted an end to the war, and they were willing to run roughshod over a bunch of colonists in the area to do it.

Given the fact that the DMZ colonists (or the people who became the DMZ colonists) were only a small portion of the members of the Federation, and the justification "It's on them", I'm sure that the politicians and bureaucrats thought it was the best they could do.

 

[Timo]

One wonders about the role of Starfleet in colonial/planetary affairs in general. Most colonies and some well-established member planets seem to hate Starfleet's guts; many also seem to practice local policies that don't fit the "mainstream" Starfleet or Earth-UFP mold of ethics.

This might be fine and well in a setup like the United States, where a nigh-impregnable continental fortress can be subdivided into squabbling sub-states without endangering the overall national defense. But the Federation is not like that, geopolitically speaking. When a hostile fleet comes to pillage, each star system basically stands alone, having to rely on local defenses and the timely arrival of Starfleet units. There are few possibilities for a front lines / homefront setup where a planet can rest assured that others are doing the fighting.

Against this background, it becomes rather understandable that Starfleet would have to play it in Machiavellian rather than Draconian tune. Essentially, all Federation star systems at the outer borders are fundamentally unreliable allies unwilling to do their part for the greater whole. One cannot simply follow a policy of protecting all UFP planets equally - one is instead forced to think in terms of using the outer holdings as ramparts and ditches, as expendable pawns, in defending the inner ones.

This would affect both the "Moonlight" and "Journey's End" scenarios. Starfleet can't fight "clean", and isn't geared for defending 100% of the UFP turf; probably even 30% gives them pause. Neutral Zones and sharp borders are local phenomena, their fortification an expensive enterprise that cannot be implemented across the entirety of UFP outer surfaces. Indeed, even if a sharp border were to be created, colonists would soon negate that by venturing farther out and trying to escape the clutches of the central government. And to go against them would negate the very basis of the freedom-loving UFP.

Sure, Kirk usually tried to keep mid-23rd century colonies on a short leash, implementing forcible relocations and blackmail schemes. But that doesn't seem to be possible in the late 24th century any more. And the alternative is to play the colonies and even some major systems for pawns.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JM1776]

Daedalus12 said: JM1776 you have a serious hard-on for the poor innocent little Maquis don't you[?]

As I said above, I don't think they're by any means blameless.

The Federation should've just left the Maquis to the wolves.

As opposed to relentlessly pursuing them in the name of a shameful appeasement? I agree, totally.

Oh, and ... that's exactly what they eventually did, isn't it? The minute the Maquis acquired an enemy that could give the Federation serious pause, suddenly the UFP's professed authority and jurisdiction over them didn't mean much at all. Then what happened to them was 'a tragedy ... simply a tragedy.' The Federation bullied and harassed them so long as it was feasible, and then washed their hands when the situation grew truly perilous.

I don't blame them for doing so; they should simply have done it before it became an act of cowardice, expediency and hypocrisy.

... they (the Maquis) were little more than a bunch of dense and cantankerous wankers whose collective ego were so high that they think they would be better off without the protection of the Federation.

They were already without the protection of the Federation. What a shame they didn't just kowtow to political pressure and abandon the land they'd settled and worked all those decades, eh?

No one could have foreseen the Dominion/Cardassian Alliance, considering that the two had been implacable foes until only days before the massacre---which means that density and cantankerousness you condemned would have been successful had things played out as predicted. The proposed independent Maquis state would have been sandwiched between a Federation unwilling to invade it for a myriad of reasons and a Cardassian Union too weakened by the Klingon invasion and leery of UFP opposition to do much. The Maquis actually played it pretty smart; they were simply screwed by unforeseeable circumstance.

Thank god the Jem'Hadar finally decimated them. Good riddance for those uncompromising assholes.

Interesting position. Does that "good riddance" apply to the thousands of children killed, too?

Perhaps you're right, though: Maybe "uncompromising assholes" should be wiped out at every turn.

I imagine instituting that policy, though, would leave various locations, including certain fora, rather barren.

 

[JM1776]

CaptainSpock said: Anyone who would stay in harm's way like that after a political settlement has to be political to some degree, if only in the "I'm not leaving my home over what some bureaucrats on Earth decided!" kind of way. I don't see how it's possible not to be; even if you weren't to start you would probably become political if your community were under constant attack by colonists of a former enemy.

I think that's an interesting point, CaptainSpock. All the colonists are political to the extent that they're immersed in the situation whether or not they wish to remain uninvolved.

In addition, being too poor to move is obviously not an issue in the Federation, which further supports your thesis that the decision for everyone was at least in some small measure political.

Good observation ... though many or most might still have simply wished to be left alone and live their lives, hoping the Cardassians would do the same---a naive perspective, perhaps, but heartfelt.

I've always felt the colonists showed questionable judgment to settle in the disputed area initially. I mean, if habitable planets were at some sort of premium in the Federation, it would be understandable. But the Cardassians were never exactly a chummy neighbor, and there are plenty of other options available.

Timo makes some excellent points above, as well. Still, the expectation of protection after settlement is a reasonable one, no matter the protestations of a distant government---especially those based on cost and inconvenience and if the government claims the area as its sovereign territory.

Forbid settling in the area, commit to its defense, or make it clear beforehand that strategic considerations will make it a low-priority theatre if war breaks out.

Once you've cut them loose, though, don't chase them down as if you still have some legal or moral authority over them, when clearly you've relinquished it. It's a typical "have your cake and eat it too" mentality.

We've gone so far astray at this point that I'm stunned the moderators haven't intervened. Admittedly, the digression is as much my fault as anyone else's: I made the comment questioning Sisko's fundamental decency, and that stirred a hornet's nest of Niner apologists into action.

Rather than continuing to argue this (unless, of course, people insist on coming after me and my position ad tedium), I'm going to assume that everyone retains their original point of view on those matters, and reassert my original position: A sequel to "In the Pale Moonlight," if handled properly, could have been excellent television.

And thus, we're back on topic.

 

[Sean Aaron]

Damn, you know I have a lengthy point-by-point response to your response to my response, but I'm content to let it lie and not veer further off course.

I did want to add on the subject of the Maquis, am I remembering wrong or did the Federation not cede the Maquis worlds to the Cardassians and basically said "Stay there if you like, but we aren't helping you if you do."? Harkening back to my earlier reply, it seems like forcible evacuation a la Israel in the Sinai would have been a better position for lasting peace with Cardassia. Of course that would have eliminated that piece of dramatic conflict from the series, I suppose...

Back on-topic, I'm content not to have a visual sequel to "In the Pale Moonlight." I'm satisfied with "Hollow Men," but I think that there are too many "follow-up" novels and short-stories that fill in things we don't necessarily need to have filled in for us. For example I don't think we'd necessarily need a novel about Geordie LaForge's recovery from the Romulan brainwashing in that "Manchurian Candidate" TNG episode, but you certainly could write one and in the right hands I'd bet it would be quite interesting, I just think it can let lie and would be better to do something new.

 

[JM1776]

CaptainSpock said: Damn, you know I have a lengthy point-by-point response to your response to my response, but I'm content to let it lie and not veer further off course.

Yep. I'm sure we could all do this forever.

I did want to add on the subject of the Maquis, am I remembering wrong or did the Federation not cede the Maquis worlds to the Cardassians and basically said "Stay there if you like, but we aren't helping you if you do."? Harkening back to my earlier reply, it seems like forcible evacuation a la Israel in the Sinai would have been a better position for lasting peace with Cardassia. Of course that would have eliminated that piece of dramatic conflict from the series, I suppose...

You're correct. They backed off the forcible evacuation in "Journey's End," the "Wesley defies Picard and grows into a man" episode.

Forcible evac's a tough one to call. I'd be against it in any circumstances where the original settlement was legal and sanctioned ... but definitely agree a government has the legal (if not always the moral) right (and sometimes the need) to say, "Look, we're ceding this area---too problematic. We'll certainly help relocate-- No? You sure? OK ... Cardassia, remaining colonists. Remaining colonists, Cardassia. Knock yourselves out. We're outta here." You just don't have the right to then stick your nose back into it, from where I sit---though Starfleet's pursuit of certain officers, such as Eddington, was in some measure justified, even if the manner in which said pursuit was executed (no pun intended) wasn't in the least.

...but you certainly could write one and in the right hands I'd bet it would be quite interesting, I just think it can let lie and would be better to do something new.

I hear you on both counts.

 

[flandry84]

Paragons are a rare species.Ben Sisko is a human being in a bad place.Moreover he is a starfleet officer who has without doubt taken life before.The Vreenak plot has to be examined against Sisko's intrinsic nature and experiences.Imagine Sisko as part of a 40 ship task force heading to WOLF 359.40 Starships!Imagine the devastation ,the soul-wrenching defeat ,the knowledge that your failure has doomed Earth and the Federation.Couple that with his own personal loss and you might get a man who standing before those casualty lists might ball his fists and say" never again".

 

[JM1776]

Indeed so. I'm not by any means saying Sisko's actions were either incomprehensible or outside his character.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

I still don't think it's excusable, though.

To say that "Wolf 359 made me want to preserve Federation and Starfleet lives, so anything I do is in the pursuit of that goal" is a weak, crutch-like justificiation.

 

[flandry84]

Anyone for a harebrained theory?
Admiral Whatley may have been more right than he knew when he accused Sisko of "going native".The wormhole aliens had no concept of linear time,of cause and effect.They therefore knew naught about real consequences and by extension, nothing about moral consequences.What if during his communion with the prophets, Sisko's own moral compass was tweaked?We saw him give out blessings,we saw him have visions,we saw him ready to sacrifice Jake to the Pah-wraiths. If a vulcan mind meld leaves it's participants altered ,then who knows?I'm not saying that Sisko is unravelled but,Col.KURTZ had his ideas of warfare too.

 

[JM1776]

That's not harebrained in the least. Quite a few fanfic authors have posited such ideas.

Give yourself credit where it's due. It's certainly a possibility worth exploring.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

I didn't really like, in Tears of the Prophets, how Sisko was forced to choose between being the Emissary and being a starship captain. It wasn't the choice that bothered me, just the fact that you could tell something bad would happen if Sisko didn't choose "Emissary".

It was a really lame point.

 

[flandry84]

To be honest,while ds9 is my favourite trek,Sisko is my least favourite captain. That said,how intolerable would Picard have been in the midst of all that socio-political/religous hubbub?

 

[Hofner]

flandry84 said:
To be honest,while ds9 is my favourite trek,Sisko is my least favourite captain. That said,how intolerable would Picard have been in the midst of all that socio-political/religous hubbub?

This is somewhat relevant. I find it interesting that in "Emissary" Picard pretty much ordered Sisko to bring the Bajorans into the Federation. He said "Short of violating the Prime Directive" and it's almost like the unspoken conclusion to that is "but violate it if you have to.". Just a perception I got; don't know if it's true.

But Picard has no idea how influential Sisko would become with the Bajorans.

Robert

 

[flandry84]

How involved in Sisko's path to DS9 were the prophets?IF WOLF 359 had not happened would Ben eventually have risen to command his own ship?etc. etc.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

^Yes, he would have.

He was already a Second Officer on the Saratoga (at least, I think he was Second Officer) and he served as Admiral Leyton's Executive Officer. He was in the Command Track, so eventually he would have commanded a starship, I believe.

You want to talk about other questionable actions? How about Admiral Leyton's coup?

 

[KRAD]

and with all due respect to HM's author, who knows his job, perhaps even better told.

I feel constrained to point out that Hollow Men was written by Una McCormack, who's not at all a "his."

He was already a Second Officer on the Saratoga (at least, I think he was Second Officer) and he served as Admiral Leyton's Executive Officer. He was in the Command Track, so eventually he would have commanded a starship, I believe.

He was first officer under Leyton first, actually, on the Okinawa, then was first officer of the Saratoga. Then Wolf 359 happened, and he transferred to Utopia Planitia and stayed there for three years (designing the Defiant, among other things) before going to DS9.