| SPSF as part of Government |
(03-23-2016, 12:41 PM)Wolf Wrote:(03-23-2016, 10:36 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: This is the catch-22 here. There are def. advantages to being able to disown the military, but we need it for treaty obligations and don't really want it running around as club outside of our control. I'd like to add onto Wolf's post. We've assisted Osiris multiple times in putting a new delegate into their seat, been one of the first responders during the short TWP coup, and the liberation of Hogwarts under my term. All of the aforementioned operations were with allies and friends of TSP. This was done without any prompting from the Cabinet or any messages whatsoever. We're already doing what you want us to do, and if we do fuck up you'll have a fallback and can distance yourself. "Oh they're operating on their own. It's not government sanctioned." Granted, it seems you guys have this mentality anyways.
As a member of the SPSF, I believe that we should be able to choose our own leaders. We know who has done the most in the army, not a random person appointing people. That being said, after choosing our own leaders, the person we choose would become a member of the cabinet, no vote no conformation. The leader of the SPSF would attend cabinet meetings and tell the other cabinet members of the SPSF activities, as long as it isn't compromising a critical part of the mission that may be happening.
This set up would allow supervision of the SPSF since it allows the Cabinet to send the SPSF on a treaty bound mission, but allows us to do what we need to keep the region secure without government oversight. With the concern that it would make the government look bad since its attached to it, you just say, "they report to us but they do their own thing as long as they uphold treaties". Finally, you may want a clause that says something along the lines of: a unanimous vote from the cabinet or a X% vote from the assembly can 1. bring the SPSF under control of _________ for X number of days (and an automatic transfer back to the leader of the SPSF after the time has expired), or 2. The SPSF must carry out the mission that the Cabinet or Assembly assigned to the SPSF by the vote. This was the best way in my opinion to fix all of the problems I've read about so far. -Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016
(03-23-2016, 08:39 PM)Siberian Wrote:(03-23-2016, 12:41 PM)Wolf Wrote:(03-23-2016, 10:36 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: This is the catch-22 here. There are def. advantages to being able to disown the military, but we need it for treaty obligations and don't really want it running around as club outside of our control. Oh my God. Seriously — I'm tired of people having chips on their shoulder. I wasn't implying that the SPSF can't be trusted or that it isn't efficient. But, as QD said, if there's no recourse, an independent army could do whatever they wanted. That's not saying either of you would, but we need to imagine scenarios where you won't be guiding the army.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] (03-24-2016, 10:32 AM)Tsunamy Wrote:Nothing against you two, but troubles in TSP occur not with the current people/government that draw up a charter and dictate a path, but the next generation coming in and doing things differently. The SPSF needs to be aware of cabinet going ons and vica versa. NS Militaries work best when the MoFA function and MoA function are long time buds and NS players.(03-23-2016, 08:39 PM)Siberian Wrote:(03-23-2016, 12:41 PM)Wolf Wrote:(03-23-2016, 10:36 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: This is the catch-22 here. There are def. advantages to being able to disown the military, but we need it for treaty obligations and don't really want it running around as club outside of our control.
TSP's army structure is meant to allow for the co-existence of institutional memory/control - via the generals corps - and political direction/control - via the minister of the army. It's not a perfect system, and hasn't always functioned well, but the reality is that we need both. Constant change in operational leadership isn't a good idea, but at the same time the army is meant to serve the aims and interests of TSP's foreign policy, and that means we need civilian oversight.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
This time period in the GC is for identification of problems, and I have to say that I wouldn't identify this as a problem in need of a solution.
The problem with the SPSF is that it doesn't recruit enough, or effectively, and its retention rate isn't stellar either. I don't think either problem is likely to be solved by making it independent of the Cabinet and letting its members pick their own leadership, because anyone who wants to recruit could run for Minister of the Army under the existing system, and could recruit even if they're not Minister of the Army. Not every problem is constitutional or structural in nature, and this is one that isn't. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Operations Participated
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |