I think I've always had a different take on Trask than most. While I agree with everyone else that his actions were despicable, I think that they stemmed from some psychiatric problems, and not from an inherent evil. The motivation of most of the L&C villains seems to be self-aggrandizement, revenge, or a quest for money or power. Trask's motivation is an, admittedly misguided, attempt to keep the people of earth safe. He actually has a lot of good, if overlooked, qualities. If he weren't so paranoid, I think he would have made an excellent military officer -- He was brave, capable of making rapid decisions and of leading other soldiers, and he was willing to die for his cause. He didn't just send his underlings in to do his dirty work; he was at the forefront of what he must have known was a risky endeavor.
When I first saw season one, I thought he was delusional. And when it came to Clark's/Superman's motives, he was. But he was also accurate in his prediction that the earth would be invaded by Kryptonians -- witness the NK story arc.
So... Here's the premise for my challenge: Rachel Harris' shot did not kill Trask, but only incapacitated him. While he recovers in hospital, he seriously thinks about Clark's refusal to kill him and his "That's not the way I work" comment. Perhaps Clark, out of some sense of guilt, comes to visit him in hospital. Maybe the hospital psychiatrist medicates him so that he starts to think more lucidly. He finally realizes that Clark himself is not a threat, but he still thinks that there may come a time when earth is invaded by Kryptonians or other aliens. When he has recovered sufficiently, he turns his energies toward coming up with ways to protect earth from such an invasion. He manages to get the U.S. government (or perhaps even the U.N.) to fund appropriate scientific research. Then, when the NK invasion does come, humans are quickly able to overcome Nor's contingent. Trask proves to be a hero for his foresight and his determination to keep earth safe.
What do you think? I know it is highly unconventional and is definitely non-canonical, but it might make for an interesting tale. Anyone want to write it?
Joy,
Lynn
edit: p.s., Yes, I am aware of Trask's other failings -- his difficulty in following orders that he disagrees with and his cavalier attitude toward sacrificing a few civilians for what he perceives as the greater good. The former might well negate my earlier suggestion of him being good officer material, were he mentally balanced. But as for the latter, I would guess that to some extent, military leaders must think that way -- they can not afford to let the risk of "collateral damage" paralyze them. (Of course, I would hope that they would try to minimize such deaths, but they would realize that sometimes they are unavoidable if one is waging war.) I can't say I like the attitude, but I can understand it and I can even recognize the necessity of thinking that way.
