PRIVATE - Governmental Commission on Military Reform (GCMR)

[The_Hawk]

Mr. President, Minister Talbott,

I request access to this Commission. I believe my comments may be of some value, particularly regarding the Coast Guard.

 

[HJ Tulp]

I would like to have a explanation, how does Mr. Tilly know about the Presidents proposal? Someone leaked! We can't have this, we are talking about military planning here. Think about the consequences if the Americanos would know that we plan possible US invasion!

 

[HJ Tulp]

The same with the Mayor, why is he here? The work we do here is top secret.

 

[Voshkod]

Commander Tulp: The Mayor was appointed by the previous President; I presume he has the proper clearances.

I can't speak for Mr. Tilly, however.

Regarding who should control MI and Spec. Ops., it should be the MDIA. In the United States, after the Goldwater-Nichols reform, the various Chiefs of Staff report directly to the Secretary of Defense, who controls (under the authority of the President) all military functions. Eutopia should match this model; one strong hand should control the services. This also can help prevent, or at least control, inter-service rivalry.

Now, as per the United States, I fear people still continue to mistake my intent.

My plan is designed to allow Eutopia to hold off (not defeat) the greatest potential military threat on Earth - the United States. I do not believe that the US will ever attack Eutopia. I certainly do not believe that we should ever attack them. But we should be in a position to survive if they do attack. And if we can survive against the U.S., we can defeat any other likely foe.

Commander, you state that if we attacked Farpoint it would be another Pearl Harbor. This is quite correct; my theory is that we should always be in a position to overrun Farpoint should the U.S. attack us, not that we should preemptively attack that facility.

Regarding budget numbers for my plan, I'll have to work on that. I am, however, still waiting to see proposals from the other members.

 

[HJ Tulp]

A MDIA can't judge if something is of military importance or not.

The problem Dr. Voshkod, is that we are in a dilemma incase we are at war with the US. We can't hit Farpoint before a war but we can't wait untill the war starts because by then the Americans will have landed a whole Marine Expeditionary Unit plus naval cover.

 

[Erc]

One statement before I continue:

I personally think that our plans for war with the United States should be based on the state of our military--not the other way around (with the possible exception of air defense). However, that being said, our military should, at the very least, be able to knock out Farpoint in the event of a war, or at least inflict extremely high casualties on the Americans.

As Commander Tulp pointed out, in the event of heightened tensions with the United States, a surprise attack on Farpoint would be counterproductive, as it would only increase American morale. We cannot fire the first shot. In such an event, the Americans would do one of two things:

1) Pull out of Farpoint entirely as an untenable position. Unlikely to occur, as it would be a disgrace to the United States, and the US will not think that it is untenable. So, since this is a dream scenario, we will ignore this.
However, it should be noted that some of the capital ships will likely be pulled out to deeper waters in such an eventuality.

2) Reinforce Farpoint in order to make sure that it cannot be knocked out immediately in the event of war, and to seize the surrounding area.

One thing we can be certain of--the United States is not going to launch a full-scale war on us and catch us completely unprepared. Democracies cannot do that. They may, however, occupy Farpoint city by surprise (as they did last October), in the event of a terrorist attack on Farpoint base, which could theoretically escalate into a general war--but this is an unlikely eventuality, as the Americans have better security now, MEOR is defunct, and Al-Qaeda, if it has any presence at all in Eutopia, is weak, and has better targets elsewhere in the world [and the mods won't get so desperate as to repeat events].

Thus, we have some time to prepare, as do the Americans. We can move troops, artillery, etc., into the surrounding area. One advantage that we do have is that Farpoint is an urban setting, and they cannot really use mass air power against troops within Farpoint itself without the risk of inflicting mass civilian casualties--they can still use it, but they cannot be as indiscriminate about it as they could be.

So, what else can we do? One possibility is a naval blockade of Farpoint. We don't want to provoke it without reason, but if they get on their high horse, it would be a logical reaction. Of course, once war breaks out, the ships are quite simply dead. However, the question is, how will the Americans react to such a blockade before the outbreak of hostilities?


And, as to the confidentiality of things said here. This is generally, a rather public commission. We have non-military men here, military reform is an important topic to the entire country. However, certain items are clearly of a secret and sensitive nature and shall not be discussed outside of this room by any commission member and will not be released when we release our final report--namely, any discussions or mentions of war plans against foreign nations, such as the above discussion.

 

[Erc]

Tilly has been invited to this commission. He's a minister, he has clearance.

 

[The_Hawk]

Thank you, Per Talbott. Commander, you shouldn't be so quick to leap to conclusions; I find myself agreeing with many of your points. Except regarding the oversight of the military by the MDIA. As Dr. Voshkod suggests, we must keep the military under civilian control somehow, and the MDIA is the most logical person to do that. Such a structure would have avoided some of the... difficulties... of a couple of terms ago. If we need legislation to make that happen, let's draft it. Increased clarity in the civilian/military command interface can only help us.

As for the Coast Guard, we could conceivably merge them with the Navy -- it might make life easier regarding the current loss of Coast Guard repair facilities with the privatization of Marticon. On the other hand, I'm concerned about the loss of the independence and history of the CG as a separate force, and also the blurring of the lines between the Coast Guard's largely law-enforcing and customs functions and the Navy's warfighting function.

I'll have some more general observations regarding the work of this Commission to date, but I'll take a moment to gather my thoughts before getting to them.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

(i dont directly have clearence but if you remember from when i was messing around in covert mile affairs, ML doesnt like things being kept from the NA but if you dont want me here i can edit it out)

Personaly i feel the first and most important thing when it comes to reform is building up the navy. More jobs and economic benefit from gearing up our shipyards and its something we can do that would have lasting effect.

 

[Erc]

(i dont directly have clearence but if you remember from when i was messing around in covert mile affairs, ML doesnt like things being kept from the NA but if you dont want me here i can edit it out)

Personaly i feel the first and most important thing when it comes to reform is building up the navy. More jobs and economic benefit from gearing up our shipyards and its something we can do that would have lasting effect.

Mr. Lundgren, you are not a member of this commission, so I am going to have to ask you to leave. I know you are entirely trustworthy, and we do want to keep this commission as public as possible (I will be sending updates of our work to the Press approximately fortnightly), but we are discussing some sensitive information at this moment, so we have to follow proper protocols. You are free, however, to join this commission on behalf of the CRP, if you wish, Mr. Lundgren.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

Mr. Lundgren, you are not a member of this commission, so I am going to have to ask you to leave. I know you are entirely trustworthy, and we do want to keep this commission as public as possible (I will be sending updates of our work to the Press approximately fortnightly), but we are discussing some sensitive information at this moment, so we have to follow proper protocols. You are free, however, to join this commission on behalf of the CRP, if you wish, Mr. Lundgren.

(then why not just ooc it instead of forcing me to go all covert on you and rat you out to the papers that you are trying to force out the publicaly elected na )

 

[The_Hawk]

Gentlepers,

Having reviewed the proceedings of this Commission to date, I wish to make a series of comments which I believe will provide a useful counterpoint to the issues raised thus far. For convenience, I have broken it into two part; one that suggests a new military philosophy for the Eutopian Armed Forces, and a second which sets out specific recommendations geared toward achieving those goals.

I hope my comments will be received in the spirit of open discussion with which they are intended.

Base Principles

The point has been made by Dr. Voshkod that we would be largely unable to fight off a U.S. invasion, and the threat of invasion by other global naval powers is minimal. This point has been reinforced by Commander Tulp, who has opined that we cannot afford a first strike at the U.S. Farpoint base, and cannot resist an invasion through that point if they choose to launch one. With these points I wholeheartedly agree. I disagree, however, with their strategy advocating delay as the solution to such a hypothetical invasion. I contend that any future Eutopian action which is serious enough to incur the wrath of the United States or a European power such that they launch a full-scale invasion is a Eutopian action which is not going to see U.S. opinion turn, and is not going to receive U.N. intervention. And in any case, what intervention are we hoping for? Our most powerful potential foes hold a veto power in the Security Council.

I further contend that this scenario is unlikely in another respect. The psychological effects of combatting those who look and act as you do cannot be denied, and given the events surrounding and following WWII, I do not believe that any state populated by those of European descent (by which I also mean states such as the U.S., Canada and Australia – and Eutopia) has any desire to fight similarly-situated states. I think this point can be supported by the observable fact that no major aggressive conflict has been fought within the borders of a European-dominated state since the Second World War. (Note that by "aggressive" conflict I mean those wherein one nation invades another – thus excluding conflicts such as the U.N. intervention action in Yugoslavia, which was in essence a multilateral action in response to civil war.)

We thus find ourselves in a situation where our most capable foes are the least likely to invade us, and in any case, where we could not stop them if they did. Given that fact, why are we preparing for them? Let us work out our differences with our neighbors through diplomacy. In this respect I also agree with Commander Tulp's suggestion of applying monetary leverage to the defense lobby in the U.S. – purchasing U.S. goods is guaranteed to improve our relations -- but I will address that point shortly.

I do not mean to go to the other extreme and suggest that we dismantle our military entirely. However, I think we need a radical reconceptualization of the military role for our armed forces to be of any value to us as a people. I thus propose that we operate from a platform built of a triumvirate of goals:

- Obviously, we need some armed forces, or we risk invasion and conquest by anyone who should wish to make the effort. Thus, at its most basic level, the Eutopian Armed Forces must endeavor to (1) prevent invasion by hostile or rogue states.

- At the same time, given our critical position at the crossroads of the Atlantic, we are accidentally but inevitably going to deal with crime and terrorism. The global paths of drugs, illegal weapons, and terror from Africa to the North American continent and South America to the European continent pass within Eutopia's territorial waters. Thus, our military must be assigned the secondary task of (2) assisting in the prevention of large-scale international crime and terrorism.

- Finally, if we are to make true diplomatic headway in the modern world – and particularly if we hope to consider ourselves a part of the global North, we must actively participate in international activities. Thus, the military should also be able to (3) contribute to multilateral international actions.

This is clearly far more limited a range of operations than the current, poorly defined raison d'etre of our military. To achieve this triumvirate of goals, I suggest we need a matching triumvirate of characteristics. The new Eutopian military should be:

- Efficient (by which I mean both small and cost-effective);

- Well-trained and professional;

- And above all, affordable.

I consider the last of the utmost importance. No comprehensive reform plan is likely to escape this commission unless it can be paid for, particularly in light of the current serious economic situation.

Thus, while my proposal involves a significant modernization of the Eutopian Armed Forces, it also necessitates a considerable level of cost-cutting. I will detail my specific recommendations in a separate part so as to limit the length of this document, but I wish to make one suggestion which I believe will gain broad-based support: the elimination of the conscript system. While these may provide our nation with a reserve, this reserve has only a year of training; in an actual combat situation they would be less than ineffective. I suggest we instead move to an all-professional military by eliminating the (considerable) cost of maintaining conscripts and use some or all of the monies thus reacquired to boost recruiting efforts, the military pay scale, and reenlistment bonuses. By acquiring a pool of dedicated recruits and paying them well, we can keep them in for the long haul, and thus guarantee a significantly higher level of combat effectiveness per person.

 

[unmerged(18797)]

I agree on Military Intelligence and Special Forces. But who should command it? Army? Navy? Airforce?

For specops, army. About intelligence, i was thinking about it being under direct command of MDIA and president

 

[HJ Tulp]

Captain Martines, I think it's best if both services are directly under the Central Military Council. With members all branches servicing in the specops and intel.

 

[unmerged(4021)]

While I am all for having adequate intellegence I would like to throw out there the idea of using SAW rather than creating something new. This has its pros and cons and I think deserves at least some thought

Additionally should decide on a new organization I think having it directly accountable to the MDIA is what makes the most sense, but Commander Tulp's idea of jointly staffing both Intellegence and Special Forces seems like the way to go.

 

[Amric]

I also agree with Commander Tulp. Each branch of the military looks at things differently. By having naval, army, and air force, along with coast guard people all jointly involved there is less of a chance of something being missed because, well, let's face it folks, each branch has it's own point of view and tends to be rather focused on only that part of the military.

By having a joint intelligence unit staffed by all branches we alleviate that issue and also help promote better interaction between the military branches as well.

 

[HJ Tulp]

Mr. President, I hate to say this but the SAW isn't very trusted by the Military. There are rumors of the SAW spying on Military officers. Furthermore, they are civilians, they might be good in spying there own but we need a organisation for Military intelligence.

The difference between the CMC and the MDIA is that the CMC knows what it needs.

 

[unmerged(4021)]

Duplicate post. Should be deleted.

 

[unmerged(4021)]

Well Commander I hate to say it but the SAW was spying on Millitary Officers, specifically Hartwell, who were planning Treason.

Furthermore, the top Intellegence Agencies in the world, the CIA, Mossada, MI7, are all "civilians". And all of those countries use offensive military force something that we all seem to agree is less likely considering our geopolitical role.

However, I'm not particularly wedded to giving SAW more scope. That said, Intellegence gathering is about priorities. When looking at what intellegence to attempt to get we are saying what our priorities as threats are; many countries, whether led by the military or by civilians have been misled about what the true threats to a country are. I do not doubt that many Generals know how to deploy troops better than I do, in the logistical/planning sense, but many of the most sucessful war leaders of all time, Lincoln, Churchill, and Roosevelt spring to mind, were not millitary people. This seems to me to be an issue of civilian control and I frankly just prefer that civilian, in this case the MDIA, and by extention of being Commander-in-Chief the President, is the one who would set up priorities and react to what is "needed".

 

[HJ Tulp]

So it is true.... My late uncle has told me that he was followed...

may I remind the President that as far as I know every nation that you named (US, UK, Israel) have military intelligence offices, independent from the CIA.

Well what are the priorities? Generals or Vice Admirals wish to know the enemies strenght and weaknesses, their position. The MDIA doesn't know which sector is the most important, etc. etc.

Curchill, Roosevelt and Lincoln sometimes told their strategical wishes but that's it.

Furthermore I would like too know, is SAW still following military personell without reason?