PRIVATE - Governmental Commission on Military Reform (GCMR)

[Voshkod]

Minister: Before we can determine our budgetary needs, we should have a framework established. It is a mistake, I think, to limit ourselves to the current budget. We must be realistic, of course, but a well presented plan may gain the military more funding.

My "American invasion" scenario has clearly been rejected by the majority of this committee. I would therefore support your "minimalist" approach: sufficient to defeat attack by second-rate powers, such as England and France. The Commander's forward defense plan is, in my opinion, beyond the current, or even future, capabilities of our military.

As for coups and morale issues, the simple problem is that our military has nothing to do. Perhaps we should offer troops to the occupation of Iraq, or begin to engage in peacekeeping operations, as the Commander suggests (although I fear such operations do significant damage to military professionalism).

Finally, perhaps we should consider a very minimalist approach, along the lines of Costa Rica, and large dissolve the Army and Air Force, and maintain enough Naval strength to defeat invasion.

 

[HJ Tulp]

We can't send troops to Iraq, we aren't equipped nor trained to do so.
I don't see why we can't go forward. We can be able to invade a nation a la Sierra Leone. Two Rotterdam class and a Wasp class vessels are enough to hurt the enemy significantly.

The simplist problem Doctor is that the Military has been betrayed a large nummer of times. A lot of servicemen are disgruntled and fed up with the mainstream political parties. Not a single politician said something after the Undeniable blew up. Not a single word. That was what made me go into politics.

 

[The_Hawk]

Doctor, I am in agreement regarding the creation of a framework; indeed, my previous comments were meant to contribute to one. I am simply attempting to determine from whence the budget for these Special Forces groups will come, and assure that, when we speak specifically about those branches of service which will pay for them, we take their funding into account.

I myself am a little more inclined to see a Joint Special Forces Command under a new Chief of Staff, reporting directly to the MDIA, who will have a wider view and will be better able to determine how to deploy those forces to support the other three branches, and minimize duplication of effort. This is not something I feel so strongly about that I would disagree to your alternative, however.

As for our role, whether we opt for a minimalist or a total minimalist approach depends largely on whether we want to contribute to international operations (for which would need at least some deployable Army forces, and possibly some Air Force forces as well) or not. I myself am inclined to believe that international contributions will better our international position, but I would remark as an aside that Costa Rica has been probably the most peaceful country in the turbulent Latin American region for the past fifty years.

That said, I would suggest we stay out of Iraq for the sole reason that it is was not multilateral. Instead, I would suggest that we volunteer our forces for U.N. peacekeeping missions. Granted, the U.N. does not have as much respect as one might hope, but certainly no other nation could question our dedication to internationalism if we comported with U.N. peacekeeping ventures and no others.

I agree with you, Doctor, that the attack role is totally outside our capability. Even if we had or desired the capacity to launch an invasion, we have no targets, and are highly unlikely to have any. Furthermore, the world is rapidly moving toward a point where invasion is an available option only to rogue states and superpowers; we aren't the second, and don't want to be the first. Let us instead support U.N. operations, and then leverage that if we are attacked to gain multilateral support from nations that do have overseas attack capability.

 

[unmerged(4021)]

The simplist problem Doctor is that the Military has been betrayed a large nummer of times. A lot of servicemen are disgruntled and fed up with the mainstream political parties. Not a single politician said something after the Undeniable blew up. Not a single word. That was what made me go into politics.

And I hope it is clear that this civilian does not really trust the millitary either and feels equally betrayed by them. I do not understand where you get off saying I lied to you. I have been clear from the beginning: Once the millitary gets its attitude straight, which if the actions of the Navy's representative are truly representative suggest hasn't happen, you would find no greater supporter of the Armed Forces and monetary spending. Indeed I have stressed repeatedly that the cuts which I propose must not be allowed to continue on a permanant basis. However, until we have a clear vision and strategy for the millitary it does not make sense to throw good money after bad. So let us continue the work of deciding what the millitary should look like because I don't think anyone here likes what it looks like today.

-Dr. Jonathan Glasser
President of Eutopia
Commander-in-Chief of the Eutopian Armed Forces

 

[Voshkod]

The more I consider it, perhaps we have been going about this the wrong way. Perhaps the Costa Rica model is the correct one. Consider: Eutopia is surrounded by oceans. We cannot face a first-world power under any circumstances. A more modern navy can fend off any potential second-power invader, if coupled with a moderate air force. The army can be reduced to a single mobile light unit, for peacekeeping deployments.

Military expenses can be cut in half, if not more, and a very modern, if small, force can be created.

 

[unmerged(4021)]

The more I consider it, perhaps we have been going about this the wrong way. Perhaps the Costa Rica model is the correct one. Consider: Eutopia is surrounded by oceans. We cannot face a first-world power under any circumstances. A more modern navy can fend off any potential second-power invader, if coupled with a moderate air force. The army can be reduced to a single mobile light unit, for peacekeeping deployments.

Military expenses can be cut in half, if not more, and a very modern, if small, force can be created.

Frankly I was reluctant to bring it up, but the more I think about it, the more I too seem to think that perhaps the Costa Rica model is the right one for Eutopia as well.

-Dr. Jonathan Glasser
President of Eutopia
Commander-in-Chief of the Eutopian Armed Forces

 

[The_Hawk]

Frankly I was reluctant to bring it up, but the more I think about it, the more I too seem to think that perhaps the Costa Rica model is the right one for Eutopia as well.

As Dr. Voshkod suggests, I believe we can defend our territorial waters and contribute to international operations with such a force. I am wholly in favor of this proposal.

 

[HJ Tulp]

Though I don't remember you sir as politician say anything about the Undeniable ever I don't think you have lied. However I am talking about the mainstream politicians in general. Just as others often talk about the Military in general.

The problem is that once a opposing force would manage to land units on EUtopia we would be defenseless. Furthermore, as we don't have any allies we must be able to strike back. That's because of diplomatic blunders that have isolated EUtopia from the rest of the world. We could count on morale support but that's it. And I'm not neciserily talking about a real invasion but punitive attacks, to capture the terrorists or the dictators and then ask the UN for help in rebuilding the nation.

Imagine this scenario: Terrorists supported and harbored by Marocco bomb the National Assembly. No way the Americans will help us now they are allready busy with Iraq, I even think that they won't if they weren't in Iraq. We would not be able to strike back. We would only be able to wait and see what they throw at us.

Furthermore, Costa Rica has the help of the US, simply because they are in their sphere. And Haiti has tried exactly the same, it hasn't brought them much good has it?
Say Great Britain would attack us, on their one. They would only need a day of fending off our navy and airforce. After that day they would have captured EUtopia City.

 

[Voshkod]

Great Britain demonstrated during the Falklands/Malvinas War that they were barely able to project significant power over long distance into hostile waters. Since that "near-run thing," their power has decayed. The French are in worse shape.

A moderate-sized frigate and submarine navy, with a moderate-sized strike fighter airforce will keep everyone but the U.S. from our shores.

But let us assume they do land. We will have at least one division of mobile troops and an independent Gorgon-equipped armor cavalry regiment, to hit them with. It is unlikely they'll be able to land heavy forces. We will have air superiority and armor superiority, and a battalion of special forces for behind the lines work.

I recommend this model for the mobile division, and this model for the ACR. Finally, we could add an aviation battalion along these lines.

 

[HJ Tulp]

There are more reasons why the UK's power has lessened over the year. Fact is that the UK was able to hit back and their Military position hasn't worsened that much. What if the OPFOR would land on one of the larger islands off the coast? They could stage fighters there and our air supremacy would be washed away. Furthermore, how many troops do you want in peacekeeping missions? Because the amount of troops you suggested are by far not enough to support multiple commitments. You need alot of troops to support peacekeeping missions. For instance the Netherlands can only support 3 peacekeeping missions at a time. The Dutch Military doesn't use the insane Costa Rica model.

If you have a peacekeeping mission then you need to prepare troops, you allready have troops on the spot AND a group that has allready been on the mission and is regenerating from it. Your model can MAYBE support 1 or 2 missions simultaniously but that would leave us with almost no troops directly ready for combat.

 

[Voshkod]

If OPFOR takes an outlying island, they will be trying to operate a modern airforce at the end of a very long supply chain. They'll have to fly or ship in fuel, parts, and ordinance. Our Navy and Air Force should be able to sever that chain.

As for peacekeeping, I am not particularly fond of that role - it weakens the troops that take part in it. The role of the military is to kill, not to build.

 

[HJ Tulp]

The enemy only needs to get a good sized convoy through. They can do that, France could do that, the United States could do that, the United Kingdom. Furthermore, I have said this before, we can't hit terrorists if they are harboured by another country.

 

[Voshkod]

When the British lost Atlantic Conveyor in the South Atlantic, there was a fear that if one more container ship was sunk, they'd have to pull back.

We don't have to do too much damage to keep them away. Except the U.S. - they will beat us.

As for hitting terrorists, I still support a batallion of special forces for such operations. Deployment of such forces could occur from something as simple as a cargo vessel.

 

[HJ Tulp]

You need to take the base away from terrorists. Clinton tried the soft approach, that was what brought 09/11. We need to hit our enemies hard.

That was the Falklands, the British are far better prepared now and I don't believe the British would have pulled back, maybe wait to regenerate strenght but it would strike back. Just like we should be able to do.

 

[The_Hawk]

Frankly, Commander, staying out of the imperialism game sounds like the best way to avoid making enemies to begin with. In any case, we could never carry off an Afghanistan or Iraq-sized invasion, and it does not seem like anyone else is particularly inclined to have our military fulfill an attack role.

Per Doctor, I am inclined to agree with your assessment. I think we may want to add some airmobile light infantry to the divisional TO&E you set out. In-country, that would allow us easier access to the outlying islands Commander Tulp is concerned about; overall, it allows us more troops to rotate into and out of international service.

The peacekeeping mission is a difficult one, to be sure, but it is the one where our troops are critically needed and guaranteed to be welcome. By limiting our involvement (consider this), and providing our troops with good equipment and training, we can minimize our personnel losses and maximize the diplomatic benefits gained from our commitment.

 

[unmerged(4021)]

Commander you are a planner. It is your job to plan for whatever contingincies and your analysis I would guess is spot on. I won't dispute the millitary side.

What I do disagree with is the political side. Why are we in a war with Britian? Why are we in a war with France?

I think committing ourselves to the Costa Rica model means we have to change how we handle ourselves internationally. I think that too could be a very good thing. Costa Rica is in a far more unstable part of the world then we are; going to war in a democracy is far harder than in a Bananna Republic and things have worked our for them. If we were to go to the Costa Rica model it's not only the millitary which would have to be reformed.

That said perhaps we should pause things temporarily until MDIA Talbott returns to see where he stands on this important issue.

-Dr. Joanthan Glasser
President of Eutopia
Commander-in-Chief of the Eutopian Armed Forces

 

[unmerged(18797)]

If we'd plan to defeat american attack we should have ABM system!Anyway, should i resign as i'm no longer part of military

 

[HJ Tulp]

Costa Rica is in a wholly different situation the EUtopia is. Their region might be instable but that's because all those nations have domestic instability, they are in the Western Hemisphere, you can't just attack a nation there without consent of Big Brother USA. Furthermore, Costa Rica is a small and not so populous nation. We are as big as United Kingdom and we have a population of 22 million people.

May I remind Mr. President that not so long ago we almost had a confrontation with the French? May I remind Mr. President that we have trouble with the Britts over Bermuda? May I remind Mr. President that we had a invasion by the USA not so long ago? We are embargoed and in a diplomatic terrible position.

I'm not saying that we should be the attackers but do the USA will not help us if a terrorist cell helped and harboured by some obscure african nation blows up EUtopians. Hell no, they have better things to do. Maybe AFTER we would have showed the terrorists and their helpers the way out of life we would get some UN peacekeepers but that's it. We must be able to counterattack.

Furthermore, we can allways here Mr. Talbotts opinion when he returns, we shouldn't waste time. With a bit luck we will get help from a new member of the commision soon.

 

[unmerged(4021)]

I think there is no reason to suggest that having another member of the Armed Forces join the discussion will break us through our logjam.

 

[HJ Tulp]

Firstly, who said it's a member of the Armed Forces?

Secondly, we have 4 civilians in the Commision, why don't we cut that? Because it adds to the discussion, the same thing with the new member.