[Jhorlin] MoD - The middle man?
•
by Jhorlin
This article is written in response to the huge storm of poo that is currently surrounding the resignation of Artela, who has been a great Chief of the General Staff for six weeks now. I find it important to emphasise that these deliberations are designed as a compromise (and in my eyes is not the ideal situation of a wholly separate military).
On Accountability
I start by taking issue about the use of the word "accountability" which is thrown around like poo from a monkey when talking about the CGS. The CGS, as head of the military, is accountable for all things going on in the military. Currently, quite rightfully so, they are difficult to remove however. I think this is the main issue.
For example, recently while Artela was head of the military, 4000G worth of military assets were lost. Artela, as head, was responsible (or accountable) for the loss. Yet it was not Artela's fault, nor necessarily a fault of the system. Somebody who was trusted and had worked through command, proven their trustworthiness suddenly went rogue. This could happen to any previous CGS, including myself, including jamesw, or in any government body. She was unlucky to have it happen to her, but she did nothing wrong (indeed the military reaction to the event was commendable). Accordingly she was accountable, but no action ought to be taken.
If, hypothetically, a CGS did steal all of the military assets for themselves, then that accountability would give rise to a reaction by the CP, one would imagine it would be the removal of that CGS. This would not be questioned by any party, because there is an obvious abuse of responsibility on the part of the CGS. However, if a CP wanted to remove a CGS because they had differing political views, this would be very difficult to justify, and doing so would be political suicide for the CP. This is the ideal system of CGS accountability and removal, because it ensures that a CGS can't be switched around like ministers at an election (and we've all seen how partisan that can be!).
It is based on this concept that I have designed an alternative model; one in which a political MoD could operate.
The Model
I offer the idea that between a fully military CGS and a fully political CP, a fully political MoD is placed. The CGS is the head of the military and acts as an advisor to both the MoD and the CP on military affairs. They are also responsible for the implementation of changes requested by the MoD or CP. The MoD applies government policy to the military, whether that be a policy on communes or orders, and issues policy to the CGS to implement. This allows a government to have a political influence on the operation of the military without disrupting it. A clear chain of command exists, where the CGS is subservient to the CP (which is delegated through the MoD).
The MoD
This position will likely rotate each month as the other ministers do, and will likely warrant applications just as other ministries do.
The key is to get this balance right. The MoD oughtn't have access to any command forum or channel, and dealings should be exlusively with the CGS (or the General Staff if the CGS chooses to delegate).
The MoD would also have to avoid meddling with certain affairs (eg promotions etc.) that are exclusive to the military as an organisation.
The CGS
This position would only be slightly different as now. They would likely have cabinet IRC access, simply so that they are able to quickly react to wars, but would not need forum Cabinet access and would otherwise not be a Minister. All reporting should be done directly to the CP or to the MoD.
The CGS runs the entire military, overseeing the various Branches as they do now, and having unfettered command over them. The only curb to autonomy is that they institute MoD requested policy.
The CGS, as now, would be designed to change as rarely as possible, and free from the CP elections and ministers. The aim would be to keep a military man (or woman) at the head of the military, who would speak on behalf of the military.
The Non-Implementation Directive
This is the difficult bit. In making it difficult to remove a CGS, it might be difficult to remove one who is simply ignoring the MoD and the CP. Harder still to remove one who is only half-heartedly applying MoD policy.
The other difficulty about creating an enforceable non-implementation directive is that it is difficult to do without opening up the position of CGS to political interference. Accordingly, I would suggest that a "3 strikes" system.
1. The MoD creates a public post, that the CGS is required to sign off on, to say that the MoD is not happy that policy is being applied. The CGS then has 48 hours to apply it.
2. Upon failing to apply policy (or take all reasonable steps to apply it) after stage 1, supermajority in congress is required to vote that MoD policy has not been applied and that the CGS has not taken all reasonable steps to apply it. The CGS then has 48 hours to apply it.
3. Upon failing to apply policy (or take all reasonable steps to apply it) after stage 2, the CP will remove the CGS for failure to apply the policy. This is rebuttable by a supermajority in congress voting that the CGS has taken all reasonable steps, however, this vote must be completed within 48 hours to be valid, otherwise a new CGS is appointed by the military.
I welcome additional thoughts and input, but would love to see this model implemented over a pure MoD.
Regards,
Jhorlin
Former Chief of the General Staff
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Wall of text, though quite interesting wall of text.
Sorry - not really much I can do in the way of pictures on this one!
There must be a way of pointing out if something is not actually practical to do, with full and good reasons given... for this reason any potential MoD will need to have proper familiarity with the workings of the Army. Just my tuppenceworth 🙂
It's just not feasible, there is too much of an overlap of duties.
A PM could appoint one each month knowing that they needed to appoint someone high ranking in the army, but what's to stop them appointing some nutter instead.
MoD is gone and it should stay gone as long as we have this military set up whereby we need someone right at the top controlling the whole thing.
I agree entirely, and would not have posted this but for the fact that there are a great number of power hungry politicians there that would see a politician as CGS. This compromise was designed to protect the integrity of the military, rather than having a political or puppet CGS.
If congress are really pushing for a political CGS then i think this would be a suitable comprimise imho.
What if we need a middle man between the CGS and MoD!? 😮
There is no "politics" and no "military", there are only "eUKers". Stop trying to be real life things and be a gamer...
7 comments, 124 votes
Interesting, although the fact you have to use a vote machine to get anyone to read it is a tad disappointing - still I would encourage a read regardless.
I've read this three times, and when I read the description of what you described as the "new" MoD job - that was almost exactly what Dish had in mind back in March and it was (pretty much) the job as I chose to operate in March; to which you yourself quoted "Tom did all the work" and received much grief for it from all corners. I personally chose to promote nobody (it being a joint decision all the way; even down to one member of Congress - not naming out of classified info; wanting to return) and offered a hand when required In the end it got scrapped by governments post to May of this year so not sure if it would work or not.
If I remember correctly also, Woldy tried to create a similar system for the Minister of War (similar to eRussia where it was tried and tested, then found to be working there) and members circumnavigated the minister Kdogg - at one point even wanting to REMOVE him from the military altogether.
To be pefectly honest, some elements have sown the seeds of their downfall from as early as January with isolation of members because of their leanings (TUP hate in the military had been going on LONG before recent events - I have screenshots of now military heads insulting TUP from as far back as January).
The military just can't work if it's going to be split down the middle. You'll get it to operate at most, but work well would be a pipedream.
The problm as I see it is many attacking the military - mostly from congress and most particularly TUP. As that's not something I'm in a position to solve, the idea of this intermediary is to try to settle relations down and find a mutually accepted position.
As for the vote machine, oh please. It's a fact of life that vote machines control the media - you'll see that from any TUP or jamesw article too. Be careful who you shoot with your hypocrisy taser.
As for recent events: its been said a gazillion times - it was one congress member speaking to another from another party. Most of TUP cannot be bothered with the bashing they receive in channels.
TUP membership in the military usually gets you abuse by many, many heads of the military. Indeed in one example TUP commons members who attended supply channel requests were questioned about votes in the house and then called retarded - hardly a suitable outlet for a weapons supply channel I think you'll agree so you'll excuse the party if it's members decide not to run and sign up for a daily drubbing of being called a dirty leftist, amongst other things.
I'm pretty sure each member has their own story to tell and it reflects upon the state of the military at current. I certainly wouldn't encourage anybody to join the UK military in its current state.
What I don't get is that you say you support the military, which is fine; but two MoD articles gets pushed off the top 5 from this article and some UKRP twaddle........................................ need I say more?
interesting article is interesting