The character of Jonathan Archer has produced many discussions in this forum - most have been fairly negative and question whether this man has what it takes to be a starship captain. While Archer has certainly changed in recent episodes, the question still remains as to why Archer was selected as the captain of the first Earth vessel capable of exploring uncharted space.
Two issues need to be clarified for this discussion. Archer's inadequacies are not a result of Scott Bakula's acting or the scripting of Berman/Braga. Bakula is a fine actor and is capable of portraying Archer in a convincing manner however the character is defined by the scripts and/or directing. And, while it is fair to criticize B&B's scripting abilities in terms of entertainment value, continuity, scientific accuracy, ect., these comments are not truly relevant in examining the Archer character. B&B may not have given us the type of person we may have envisioned commanding the first Enterprise; but Archer, as he has been portrayed in Enterprise, is that man.
So who is Jonathan Archer and how did he get command of the Enterprise? We know some facts, but not the reasons for Star Fleet's decision. There are clues:
Archer the Inventor/Engineer: Archer was instrumental in making modifications to proto-type warp drives (First Flight) and was present during Enterprise's construction. He probably knows the ship's systems almost as well as Trip. However, engineering or scientific knowledge by itself rarely translated into a command position. While engineering may be good entry point for being tagged as having leadership qualities, the likelihood of receiving a commission decreases the longer one remains a technologist. This is presently true in business, government, and the military, and seems to apply to Star Fleet in 2151 and in the future (I don't think Scotty or Geordi even get their own command).
Archer the Pilot: Archer has identified himself as a pilot in numerous episodes and has demonstrated an uncanny knack of understanding the flight controls of alien systems (e.g Canamar, Cogenitor, Bounty). He ran test flights on early proto-type drives (First Flight) and has proven capable of skillfully piloting Enterprise even when incapacitated (e.g., Singularity). But piloting skills are not sufficient to justify a command appointment. Test pilots are especially suspect as they are considered as far too inclined to take (unnecessarily) risks. Starship helmsmen are nearly always lowly ensigns.
Archer the Leader: Archer has demonstrated few skills that one would associate with leadership. He appears to have little, if any military training. (The rank designations in Star Fleet during this time seem honorific. Only the MACO's behave like the military.) More critical is that he has failed to establish his command authority even after many months in space (e.g., Deep Stop, Cogenitor). Nor is it obvious that has exceptional people skills or has been previously in positions of higher-level management in either business or government. Archer definitely has problems with delegation and decision-making. He infrequently solicits advice from his crew, acts on their expert opinions, and rarely provides satisfactory explanations of his decisions that would inspire confidence in his leadership.
Archer the Diplomat: Considering the great possibility for first contact, one would expect the captain of the Enterprise to have been selected, at least in part, for his diplomatic skills. Picard and Sisko had refined these skills to an exceptional level. Janeway was competent and Kirk used charisma to make up for his inadequacies. Archer, however, is pretty provincial and oblivious at time to what diplomacy requires (e.g., Night in Sickbay). No one can argue this is one of Archer's strength.
Archer the Political Appointee: I think this is the only obvious answer for Archer being given command of the Enterprise. He appears to be the choice of technocrats within Star Fleet and his command is certainly viewed favorably as an appointment from within the organization. Star Fleet, however, is not Earth's government and Archer would have to be approved by Earth's political establishment before taking command. So why would the Earth's political leaders agree with Star Fleet's recommendation? First, Archer is a symbol of Earth's rapid advances in science and re-establishment of civilization after the devastating world wars. He is the son of Henry Archer, the man who designed the Enterprise's engines (Broken Bow) who is seems to be held in the highest esteem along with Zefram Cochrane. Second, Archer's appointment is a victory for the political faction that views the Vulcan's control as stifling Earth's growth. There must be viable political factions that either are pro-Vulcan or anti-space exploration. Archer's commission would be a victory for the anti-Vulcan faction and pro-space lobby.
Enterprise's launch was hurried and Archer's appointment was done in haste. The ship's first mission was not one of exploration, but done to resolve a diplomatic crisis, returning a wounded Klaag to Kronos. This needed to be done on a partially finished, untested ship of novel design. For this task, the commission of Archer as Engineer makes some sense and explains why he seems so ill prepared to deal with issues of command. The politicians must have agreed that Archer was capable of this task. His orders were simple, get the ship from Earth to Kronos and don't do anything foolish to hack off the Klingons. The Vulcans didn't think Archer could do this without supervision and required T'Pol to tag along - not exactly a vote of confidence. The only other candidate Star Fleet had to offer was A.G. Robinson, who was viewed as even more reckless than Archer.
Would Archer have remained in command if the initial mission either failed or even succeeded without incident? Hard to say, but Earth's politicians would have been hard press to replace Archer after what transpired and the mission had to be considered a great achievement. Nevertheless, he's always been one major screw-up away from being recalled (Shockwave 1). It still surprises me that they didn't revoke his commission. Earth is pretty lucky that the Klingons consider Archer personally responsible for his actions instead of holding all of Earth accountable. He must have friends in high places that have kept him in command.
The fact that Archer is a focal point in the temporal war, which is somehow tied to the Xindi attack, must raise new concerns, but it now would be political death to even suggest revoking his command. Events have overtaken politics and Archer is now bullet-proof. Besides, it would be hard to recall the Enterprise from the Expanse.
In conclusion, let me return to the idea that B&B somehow screwed up by scripting for us the Archer character as he has been written and acted. On the contrary, I find it immensely intriguing that the captain of the first starship Enterprise is so flawed. Archer has more room to grow and develop as a leader (apparently becoming a driving force for the foundation of the Federation) than any other Star Trek captain. Kirk, Picard, or Janeway didn't change much at all in their series. Sisko and the other DS9 characters did grow over time, which adding much to depth to the series. Archer may emerge only as a competent leader after several more years. (In fact, I can image a story where Star Fleet recognizes that their current crop of officers are so poorly prepared for deep-space exploration that they starts up the Academy program.)
| 
