No Surrender, No Retreat ( *Spoilers* )

[B5JMS Poster]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 1 Jun 1997 13:46:38 -0400
Lines: 102

Spoilers for No Surrender, No Retreat


























You're a bloodthirsty fellow, aren't you?

"JMS wanted it to be a battle, so a battle it was instead of a massacre."

*Sheridan* wanted it to be a battle.

You say I don't think in military terms...you're incorrect.  First, I've
heard from a lot of military types who commended what was done there, shot
for shot.  It's some fo the comments that have shown a problem, for my
money.  (If you feel comfortable taking shots at this part of it, I should
have the same freedom in response, yes?)

The comment here that the line from Sheridan about "rules of engagement" 
was incorrect from a military perspective, since he wouldn't know the
exact rules of engagment between the captains and crews of the various
shipss is a good example of this.  No, he might not know *those*
specifics, but the idea of NOT SHOOTING AND DESTROYING UNARMED CIVILIAN
TRANSPORTS is covered by just about every civilized army's rules of
engagment, and from the git-go *that* was what was at issue.  Some people
here get so caught up in the nitpicking that they forget the
obvious...then complain about it as a "problem" when it ain't one.

Second, if the only objective is to destroy, destroy, destroy...that's one
thing.  But Sheridan wasn't fighting aliens, wasn't fighting some
anti-Earth force, he was fighitng *his own fellow officers* and wanted to
avoid excess bloodshed, to only hit those responsible for murdering
civilians.

Further, okay, let's say he and his forces demolish every Earth ship sent
against him.  Over and over and over.  Roughly 500-600 crew per ship.  How
long do you do this?  Ten ships?  Twenty?  Thirty?  There are about 200
such destroyers between Sheridan and Earth.  Add up the dead.  And believe
me, if he begins a campaign of wanton destruction and murder, callously
blowing everything out of the sky, you aren't going to find anyone who
won't fight you because they lost more and more friends in the course of
that battle.

You *want* the other side to have some officers and ships that won't fight
you because everything you're doing is right and moral and justifiable. 
If he's a berserker, then you can forget about any allies.

You're thinking *tactical*, not *strategic*, and for Sheridan to win this
he must not only be a good strategic thinker, he must be a good
*political* thinker.

Eventually, this war will be over...or at least the fighting...and then
what?  How does he justify his case to Earth?  Eventually, as stated, he's
going to have to present his case before Earth and the voters and the
government...unless you'd just prefer him to bomb the hell out of
Earthdome and half the Eastern Seaboard and install himself as the new
Atilla the Hun.

He has to come into this situation with *moral authority* if he's to win
at the end.  The problem doesn't end at the battle, it ends at Earth.  So
he has to do all he can to avoid undue slaughter, to convince the others
in Earthforce that his cause is moral, and to lay the foundation for an
eventual return to Earth in a way that is morally persuasive.

Your tactics would fail to achieve that...he would be a rogue and a
berserker who would eventually be hunted down and killed like the mad dog
he would be.

There are those contingents of fans who just think that the guy with the
biggest gun ought to use it to win, period.

This ain't that kind of show.


 jms






-***
-*** B5JMS SUBSCRIBERS: Replies to messages go to the list maintainer,
-*** <b5jms-owner at cs.columbia.edu>.  If you want to reply elsewhere, adjust
-*** the "To" field.  The best way to reach JMS is to post to rastb5m, which
-*** can be done by sending email to <b5mod at deepthot.cary.nc.us>.