S10: Critique & Contemplation

[scifithinker]

Spoiler:

Considering the exceptional seniority the position of HWS would be. (Isn't it a cabinet position?) I'd consider it more likely that Jack was supposed to be a three star general from the out set; they just weren't allowed to promote him twice so rapidly so regulations mandated a gap. Plus the idea that running the SGC and running HWS are about the same rank of responsibility seems a little off

Running the SGC and Homeworld Security aren't the least bit equivalent since Homeworld Security oversees the SGC.

[Crazedwraith]

Yes, that was my point.

[Ashizuri]

Spoiler:

Considering the exceptional seniority the position of HWS would be. (Isn't it a cabinet position?) I'd consider it more likely that Jack was supposed to be a three star general from the out set; they just weren't allowed to promote him twice so rapidly so regulations mandated a gap. Plus the idea that running the SGC and running HWS are about the same rank of responsibility seems a little off

Spoiler:

I suppose the flaw in my argument is that I'm trying to follow actual military procedure and the show didn't always do that.

It seems to me that if they couldn't promote him to the rank required for the position then they couldn't put him in that position. The only way they could would be if he was deputy commander of HWS, but it was never said that head of the SCG also held that position, but that could be a possibility I never considered until now.

[scifithinker]

Running the SGC and Homeworld Security aren't the least bit equivalent since Homeworld Security oversees the SGC.

Yes, that was my point.

Yep. I was just elaborating.

[Nightspore]

I'm afraid she is. Jack's pretty far up the chain but he's still there. If Landry suddenly died for example, he'd pick the next SGC commander. (after he picked Landry and he Lam according to season 9)

So he does still have the power to be a unfair advantage for Sam's Career.

Although when she assumes commands of the 304 Hammond possibly not. THey've been a bit fuzzy on who ultimately controls them: Homeworld Security or the IOA itself.

It is "direct chain of command." While Jack was Sam's superior officer on the SG-1 team, fraternization regs (in the real world) would have permitted them from being involved in a physical/emotional relationship. But Carter is no longer in Jack's "direct chain of command" and so they would be free to engage in a relationship. That's really how it works.

Stargate has ignored military regulations in so many respects over the years – from military clothing, Jack wearing a baseball cap through the 'Gate, Janet pulling a gun on Nirrti and never getting reprimanded or punished, actually having Daniel on the team in combat situations, just to name a few, that I (like some others) find it hilarious that when it comes to Sam and Jack (for some) it is always "But, but, it is against the regs, and paints a picture that is demeaning to our men and women in the the military." Like allowing Vala with her background, sexual innuendos, quips about making babies and not bringing along her hair dryer, etc, etc. to be a member of the flagship SG team isn't painting a picture of our military that is NOT flattering and insulting?

If one is a stickler for this show portraying the military as realistically as possible, then one has to be for it across the board – in all respects, not just raise the flag of "Oh, it's against the regs" when they show something one doesn't like. At least, that's how I see it.

[scifithinker]

One of the things that went out the window once TPTB decided SG-1 was a band of screw ups was the regs. Personally, I preferred it when they stuck to military details closely. Once they locked the military adviser in the supply closet, quality suffered.

[suse]

Like allowing Vala with her sexual innuendos, quips about making babies and not bringing along her hair dryer, etc, etc. isn't painting a picture that is not flattering?

If one is a stickler for this show portraying the military as realistically as possible, then one has to be for it across the board – in all respects, not just raise the flag of "Oh, it's against the regs" when they show something one doesn't like. At least, that's how I see it.

Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.

suse
(see location)

[VSS]

It is "direct chain of command." While Jack was Sam's superior officer on the SG-1 team, fraternization regs (in the real world) would have permitted them from being involved in a physical/emotional relationship. But Carter is no longer in Jack's "direct chain of command" and so they would be free to engage in a relationship. That's really how it works.

Stargate has ignored military regulations in so many respects over the years – from military clothing, Jack wearing a baseball cap through the 'Gate, Janet pulling a gun on Nirrti and never getting reprimanded or punished, actually having Daniel on the team in combat situations, just to name a few, that I (like some others) find it hilarious that when it comes to Sam and Jack (for some) it is always "But, but, it is against the regs, and paints a picture that is demeaning to our men and women in the the military." Like allowing Vala with her sexual innuendos, quips about making babies and not bringing along her hair dryer, etc, etc. isn't painting a picture that is not flattering?

If one is a stickler for this show portraying the military as realistically as possible, then one has to be for it across the board – in all respects, not just raise the flag of "Oh, it's against the regs" when they show something one doesn't like. At least, that's how I see it.

Yes, you are absolutely correct on all of this, from first to last. If I could I'd just dump all my green on you.

[leiasky]

It is "direct chain of command." While Jack was Sam's superior officer on the SG-1 team, fraternization regs (in the real world) would have permitted them from being involved in a physical/emotional relationship. But Carter is no longer in Jack's "direct chain of command" and so they would be free to engage in a relationship. That's really how it works.

Stargate has ignored military regulations in so many respects over the years – from military clothing, Jack wearing a baseball cap through the 'Gate, Janet pulling a gun on Nirrti and never getting reprimanded or punished, actually having Daniel on the team in combat situations, just to name a few, that I (like some others) find it hilarious that when it comes to Sam and Jack (for some) it is always "But, but, it is against the regs, and paints a picture that is demeaning to our men and women in the the military." Like allowing Vala with her sexual innuendos, quips about making babies and not bringing along her hair dryer, etc, etc. isn't painting a picture that is not flattering?

If one is a stickler for this show portraying the military as realistically as possible, then one has to be for it across the board – in all respects, not just raise the flag of "Oh, it's against the regs" when they show something one doesn't like. At least, that's how I see it.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more. And I was allowed to green you, too!

[Crazedwraith]

I'm sorry, Nightspore. I'm working off a very general idea of military regs but you seem to be suggesting that Jack & Sam can't date when they're together on a team because of the direct chain of command but when Jack is in fact in charge of the entire program that Sam is in and is a position to make appointments and so forth it would be ok?

If they were in a relationship with Sam at SGC and Jack at HWS then Jack could lean on Landry to get Sam better assignments, more responsibilities etc. If Landry left, Jack would be in a position to appoint her head of the SGC over the top of more senior personnel if he liked.

So if that is not against the letter of the regs, it still would certainly seem to be against the spirit of the regs. As Sam could use the relationship to gain favourable treatment.

[VSS]

I'm sorry, Nightspore. I'm working off a very general idea of military regs but you seem to be suggesting that Jack & Sam can't date when they're together on a team because of the direct chain of command but when Jack is in fact in charge of the entire program that Sam is in and is a position to make appointments and so forth it would be ok?

I don't meant to be rude, but perhaps the problem is the part I highlighted in bold? The frat regs are primarily there to prevent officer/enlisted relationships, and relationships between officers and their direct supervisors, and people I know who are in the military back that up. If you actually read them, they mention nothing whatsoever about "chain of command"- that is a requirement that exists only in Stargate fandom, as far as I can tell! There's a lot of wiggle room for key officers. Furthermore, if Jack's CO didn't have a problem with it, then there's not a problem.

Really, we've no idea what the command structure is since the IOA got involved, anyway, or what Jack is actually doing, and it was probably left vague for that very reason.

[Ashizuri]

If they were in a relationship with Sam at SGC and Jack at HWS then Jack could lean on Landry to get Sam better assignments, more responsibilities etc. If Landry left, Jack would be in a position to appoint her head of the SGC over the top of more senior personnel if he liked.

According to Weir in New Order Pt. 2, the pentagon convinced the president to appoint Jack to head of the SGC. Then again, we're led to believe in Avalon that Jack had something to do with Landry's appointment, but not actually told outright that is the case. But I'm going to go with actual dialogue and assume that the head of the SGC is a presidential appointment.

I think the issue here is that we don't actually know anything about HWS, what Jack does within it, or the actual chain of command. We don't know exactly how much power the IOA has over the operation, though I would assume it's substantial. There are too many "what ifs" to actually try and apply frat. regs.

Here's to hoping the new movie and Universe clear this up.

EDIT: Apparently VSS and I are thinking along the same lines.

[VSS]

According to Weir in New Order Pt. 2, the pentagon convinced the president to appoint Jack to head of the SGC. Then again, we're led to believe in Avalon that Jack had something to do with Landry's appointment, but not actually told outright that is the case. But I'm going to go with actual dialogue and assume that the head of the SGC is a presidential appointment.

I had the distinct impression that Jack was appealing to Landry to take the job at the SGC as a personal friend, not in an official capacity. As if he just showed up one day and said "Have I got a deal for you."

Another odd thing is that Weir said Hammond would be overseeing Area 51 as the director of HWS- but then in Season 9 Sam seems to still be under Landry's command, working on SGC projects out there. I always attributed that to the SGC wanting to keep out any meddling from higher-ups, most likely the IOA.

[Crazedwraith]

Don't worry, I don't think you're being rude at all. Discussion is why we're here right?

Anyway, can you see my point that it could be seen as a bit dodgy?

Jack does have pull at the SGC; Doctor Lam for example specifically mentions Jack as the person that offered the SGC job. Although I admit the later we get the fuzzier things get with the IOA's authority.

[slurredspeech]

*stumbling in with a non-sequitur*

I just watched Failsafe. Mmmm, teamy goodness, and man do I miss those days. MISS.

And re: regs. I'm not 100% sure about American military but I think the word 'direct' is operating in the phrase direct chain of command (because of issues such as promotion recs, etc.). Otherwise, it's more of a guideline. I'm not saying it's not frowned upon (though more so if it's the officer-non officer relationship, but still) because it's known to be but I'm fairly certain it's not illegal.

Then again, as other people have stated, we don't really know what it is Jack does exactly. He could be planning world domination, for all we've been told in the last couple of seasons.