Why is there resistance to the idea of Starfleet being military?
- Thread starter The Wormhole
- Start date
- Status
That's a good point. A lot of what we take to be general Starfleet principles derive from the practicalities of survival in isolation. Diplomacy makes more practical sense than a belligerent stance, because you never know when you might be outnumbered or outgunned. And it's also practical in terms of resupply, and establishment of lines of communication and trade. Totally practical in that sense. Where things get tricky is trying to extrapolate that back to a larger society which also behaves in that way.
"We're a combined service."
-Captain Kirk (UESPA/Starfleet) to Captain Christopher (USAF), Tomorrow is Yesterday
-Captain Kirk (UESPA/Starfleet) to Captain Christopher (USAF), Tomorrow is Yesterday
I think the really explicit anti-military stuff early in TNG was probably rooted in a perception that the US had become more militaristic in the 1980s, and that the goals of the '60s anti-war movement were being subverted. Remember the Oliver North appearance in TNG season 1.
As the series went on everyone seemed to get over that and "warlike" stories became OK.
I understand that you haven't read it, but, no. The series is basically the story of a naval officer learning the professional ropes and taking on bigger and bigger assignments during a very long war. His ships usually work independently, because that makes for better adventures, and he goes on diplomatic missions a few times, but it's all with the same goal in mind: To put some hurt on the French, the Spanish, or both.
It is true that the Royal Navy in the 19th century was very much like Starfleet, but that was after Waterloo, when Hornblower was an admiral and his adventures were mostly over. What seemed to be mostly Hornblower-like in the very early series was the character of the captain (Pike). Hornblower was socially awkward because he had an inward lack of confidence and self-criticism that he dared not let show. That seemed to be largely dropped with the change to Shatner/Kirk.
As the series went on everyone seemed to get over that and "warlike" stories became OK.
I understand that you haven't read it, but, no. The series is basically the story of a naval officer learning the professional ropes and taking on bigger and bigger assignments during a very long war. His ships usually work independently, because that makes for better adventures, and he goes on diplomatic missions a few times, but it's all with the same goal in mind: To put some hurt on the French, the Spanish, or both.
It is true that the Royal Navy in the 19th century was very much like Starfleet, but that was after Waterloo, when Hornblower was an admiral and his adventures were mostly over. What seemed to be mostly Hornblower-like in the very early series was the character of the captain (Pike). Hornblower was socially awkward because he had an inward lack of confidence and self-criticism that he dared not let show. That seemed to be largely dropped with the change to Shatner/Kirk.
How many on-screen military engagements and wars does it take?
I agree. The Pike characterization of self-doubt and wanting to move on may have worked for the pilot's storyline, but I do not believe would have worked over the course of a series.
The Kirk characterization was better; though, a few episodes dealt with self-doubt, but privately, usually shared with McCoy.
But as I noted in my first post, just as many characters if not more have stated quite clearly there is no money in the 23rd and 24th centuries, and yet the majority of fandom is of the opinion "that makes no sense, ignore it." So why is it okay to ignore "there is no money" despite the fact that it actually gets repeated more often than the line about Starfleet is not a military?
Hell if anything, Starfleet's non-status as a military is more of a modern day retcon than anything else. True, Picard did say just this in Peak Performance in 1989, but then the next time anyone says Starfleet isn't a military is Captain Archer and Admiral Forrest in 2003's The Expanse, and since then it gets repeated regularly, even up to Beyond just now. So even after it is first stated that Starfleet isn't a military, we go fourteen years bringing it up again, and in those fourteen years we see Starfleet doing things typically associated with the military, up to and including fighting a war. And yet, we must adhere to the belief that "Starfleet isn't a military."
Meanwhile the fact that Earth/the Federation doesn't use money is mentioned multiple times throughout TNG (and its movies), DS9 and Voyager, but that we must ignore because "it doesn't make sense."
Why is one thing perfectly okay to ignore and not the other?
I feel like it is a false choice. Starfleet is a military in the same way a Swiss Army Officer's knife is a corkscrew and Starfleet is not a military in the same way a Swiss Army Officer's knife is not a corkscrew. Being the UFP's armed forces is a secondary role that only comes to the forefront when one needs to open a vintage bottle of melee. 
Wow, that sounds more like Archer.
Starfleet fulfills the functions of a military, but that's only one of its purposes.
In a strict sense that makes Starfleet a paramilitary organization, I guess.
In a strict sense that makes Starfleet a paramilitary organization, I guess.
Whether or not Starfleet is military really only shows its tension as some in the US have attempted over the last thirty years to enforce a stricter definition of what a military is supposed to be. The military is an instrument of policy. More often than not, it is perceived as an armed instrument in defense of the territory of the state. However, it is also a diplomatic tool, strengthening relations with allies. And more often than is appreciated, it is a reserve labor force that can be quickly deployed into situations in which the state has not yet assigned to specific departments. To that end, soldiers can be placed into situations in which they are policing and distributing assistance. THe US Coast Guard is the best example, having means of participating in (small) armed exchanges, but that patrols coasts and offers emergency aid. The notion that the military exists only to fight greatly constrains its effectiveness.
Speaking for myself - I don't much care what the fandom says - the amount of negative drivel coming out of it these days for the most part forces me to ignore its deeper musings, outside of this place.
As to money - again, I fall on the side of what the main characters of what I consider to be more relevant(Modern as you say) Trek have said. Clearly a separate thing - All I'll say is post-scarcity on most inner Fed worlds + healthy rejection predatory capitalism/all capitalism almost.
The characters of which I speak clearly do not believe they joined a military organisation - for many of them I'd even say they wouldn't have joined had the primary mission of Starfleet been defense/shooting things. They're curious buggers who want to explore the cosmos and learn stuff for the most part.
Obviously defense is in the Starfleet charter, but my reading of how characters think about it is that it falls pretty far below Exploration - diplomacy - Humanitarian work etc. Perhaps the view could be that exploring and learning is in a way defending and enriching the UFP.
Its an issue of ideals, and it just so happens that the overarching ideal is that Starfleet is not a military force, but can serve as one when and if required.
Take this as you will - I am after all a child of the 90's - the first Trek I ever watched was First Contact followed by VOY then ENT so these ideals have always been core to my view of the Starfleet philosophy - TOS then and still seems to be far too unorganized, not to mention dated, for me to care much for its proclamations.
Equally I don't understand the obsession with wanting Starfleet to be military. Its weird.
I don't think most ignore the idea that there isn't money (IIRC those references were mostly about Earth or humans interacting with humans rather than the whole Federation) but acknowledge that there have been some inconsistent depictions about the idea so some middle ground actually exists.
I think it's appropriate to call Starfleet a multitask organization rather than a military organization. When people (including Picard, although that line felt a little half-hearted) object to calling Starfleet the military or a military organization it's because calling it that suggests that diplomacy and exploration are just window-dressing or luxuries pursued, the real focus and motivation is to fight conflicts that are assumed can occur at any time. It also can suggest that the characters who dislike combat and try to pursue diplomatic much more than armed solutions to problems are incompetent, delusional or disloyal. It makes sense to me that the Starfleet characters would be reluctant to shift to military operations although they would still be able to.
I think it's appropriate to call Starfleet a multitask organization rather than a military organization. When people (including Picard, although that line felt a little half-hearted) object to calling Starfleet the military or a military organization it's because calling it that suggests that diplomacy and exploration are just window-dressing or luxuries pursued, the real focus and motivation is to fight conflicts that are assumed can occur at any time. It also can suggest that the characters who dislike combat and try to pursue diplomatic much more than armed solutions to problems are incompetent, delusional or disloyal. It makes sense to me that the Starfleet characters would be reluctant to shift to military operations although they would still be able to.
There's the interesting episode where Picard's superior tell him to engage in a military exercise, Picard states that Starfleet isn't a military, then Picard goes ahead and engages in the miltary exercise.
As is often pointed out, the age of sail nicely lines up with what we see Starfleet doing.
Many more associatethe word military with protection, honor, pride, courage and self sacrifice.
Yes, that's a good analogue for Starfleet.
There is no way to gauge that 'more' on a worldwide scale though. Person A has a soldier for a hero, because they saw a heroic soldier, person B has a soldier for a villain, because they saw a villainous soldier. Sometimes that soldier was the same man.
As Trek, and Star fleet, represent all of humanity, it would be difficult, within the parameters of Star Trek to say 'all soldiers are good' especially if you need some decidedly not good soldiers to be the antagonist in next week's episode.
The primary task of a military, when you get down to it, and for good or ill, is basically to kill the enemy, whoever that may be. Therfore a decision was made that Star fleet is not a military, because that is not its primary function.
Now...In the real world, there are many good soldiers, and the military are involved in much much more than simply making more of the other side die than on your own, including humanitarian work.
There are also many 'soldiers' identifiable as such by having rank, a uniform, a weapon, who commit unspeakable acts.
It may depend on where you are, but those are the realities.
How much easier is it to say, in a positive vision of the future, that there are no soldiers, just good people who when they need to will defend everyone?
That's why a lot of us are against Star fleet being a military. It doesn't need to be, it serves no good within the parameters of trek.
Ex Astris Scientia
+1 for me re: the USCG.
Also the RAN (at least as shown from the POV of the crew of the patrol boat HMAS Hammersley) which spends much of its time answering distress calls, disaster relief, enforcing fishing/border/safety regulations (not sure how applicible this one would be in space) and customs patrol, as similar to USCG cutters (esp the similarly sized Sentinel-class SAR/LEO cutters) they have minimal, short-range armaments usable for defensive purposes only (25mm autocannon and machine guns) and limited sensors, usually radar and sometimes hull-mounted cameras) and so while they have a 'military' role (in the sense that they are part of a uniformed/armed force) their purpose is not 'militaristic' but rather to quote Christopher Pike 'humanitarian and peacekeeping' operations. Other uniformed services that don't have a 'militaristic role' - and indeed have primary reporting lines outside of the military framework are the NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps and the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps of the United States. However both are still uniformed services and will work alongside the armed forces at individual command level towards mutual objectives.
Also the RAN (at least as shown from the POV of the crew of the patrol boat HMAS Hammersley) which spends much of its time answering distress calls, disaster relief, enforcing fishing/border/safety regulations (not sure how applicible this one would be in space) and customs patrol, as similar to USCG cutters (esp the similarly sized Sentinel-class SAR/LEO cutters) they have minimal, short-range armaments usable for defensive purposes only (25mm autocannon and machine guns) and limited sensors, usually radar and sometimes hull-mounted cameras) and so while they have a 'military' role (in the sense that they are part of a uniformed/armed force) their purpose is not 'militaristic' but rather to quote Christopher Pike 'humanitarian and peacekeeping' operations. Other uniformed services that don't have a 'militaristic role' - and indeed have primary reporting lines outside of the military framework are the NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps and the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps of the United States. However both are still uniformed services and will work alongside the armed forces at individual command level towards mutual objectives.
I don't entirely agree with this point (though I think you'd have a stronger case for armies), however I agree that this is not Starfleet's primary purpose and therefore I think that it is unlikely that Starfleet maintains personnel trained only for this role (ie infantry) but rather multi-disciplinary personnel that can take on that role should the situation demand it.
And one of the most efficient ways of combating those realities, is to ensure that people who find themselves in those situations have the best training, equipment and skillsets to allow them to survive and to protect others.
'(Good) people who when they need to will defend everyone' existing outside of the accountability of a military (or law enforcement) chain of command are vigilanties. While I like a good comic book as much as the next person, there are too many cases of this type of thing being ruled by individual prejudices and tragic misunderstandings for me to believe that it's a 'better' model.
PR isn't less sinister than propaganda, they are one and the same thing.
As I understand it, public relations is (mostly) about objective presentation of facts and aims (sometimes edited slightly to make them look good), propganda is about subjectively and actively shaping the narrative to serve a specific agenda.
The two concepts do have a fair bit of overlap though.
The two concepts do have a fair bit of overlap though.
- Status
