Personally, I think Garak is based. Especially because of his love with Bashir.
There's an interfaces between pre and post scarcity societies at the frontiers of the federation. In those places, it's agents are forced into possible moral quandaries, and the Federation's core often fails to given them proper guidance and support. Sisko is forced to engage in moral laundering for the federation, keeping the hands of the organization clean by engaging in unsanctioned behavior, while also advancing the interests of that organization. This sort of thing happens constantly in our own shitty real world, but In The Pale Moonlight (and DS9 in general) shows a way in which these kind of failures can happen even in a better society.
When you think about it Sisko and Section 31 aren't particularly different in material outcomes (For the Uniform is another episode where Sisko and the Federation are clearly in the wrong) But they are framed very differently and I think in a way that is more liberal ideology than Socialist.
Difficult times call for difficult measures. Sisko's actions were justified.
Sisko probably does more war crimes than any other ST character and yet hes still the best captain
janeway has genocided entire civilizations by just being there, doing nothing
'empress janeway?! this must be the mirror universe!'
'i'm afraid not neelix. the mirror borg are an anarchist commune dedicated to the revolution. but as you can see, these are my loyal guards.'
'but captain this makes no logica-'
'i'm disappointed tuvok. your emotional attachment to me clouded your judgement. you should have known the truth from the moment i killed tuvix with my own bare hands.'
why didn't they just goddamn clone tuvix. transporters clone people all the time
you know why. because janeway is a master manipulator who runs voyager like the stanford prison experiment
Honestly when you break down all she did she's one of the most evil people in the Trek canon
I don't know if this is particularly "Marxist"... but the Federation operates in a very liberal "we don't do that here" kind of ethos. The ends never justify the means. Out of universe, this clearly parallels the US' beliefs in their own moral superiority that seemed to be validated with the fall of the USSR. But in-universe, the Federation and humans in particular have moved to a phase of society where peace and plenty is the norm. They have the space to be able to actually believe their own bullshit about ends and means. The friction just isn't there.
Pretty much any way you look at it, Sisko did the right thing. It was risky, sure, but trading one life for billions is really the only thing you can do. Sisko recognizes this as well as anyone. But... it violates the "liberal" values he's been told all his life and especially drilled into him in Starfleet. He can accept what he did, but he can't accept that contradiction (as evidenced by his inability to drink the glass of water in the final monologue - such an amazing little detail they added).
I never noticed that detail before. Guess I gotta rewatch the dominion arc now.
Good take, thanks for the writeup
the existential threat the dominion faces doesn't have a real parallel. i'm not even sure there's an analogous ambassador to assassinate or analogous response to said assassination for any of the third world nations to have done during the cold war to get help aganst a US coup or invasion.
The analogy would be something like if the USSR framed America for shooting down Kissinger's plane before him and Nixon could 'normalize relations' with China, leaving an 18 minute long section of falsified tape recordings in which the invasion of the PRC to reinstall the ROC government was discussed; forcing China to openly side against the USA in the cold war.
... brb, breaking the temporal prime directive
wait no stop framing the US for killing a Chinese diplomat, would be better, rather than their own guy and kissinger wouldn't die anyway.
