Of mice and men; of masters, commanders, and... committees?
•
by Jhorlin
Readers,
For those of you keeping up with current military affairs, fezoj has stepped down as the leader of our fine military. I use the word fine very carefully in this instance, because I am disappointed to see the military on the brink of spiralling into chaos.
The purpose of this article is to provide some input to the current military commanders, and the Prime Minister who has rightly taken a keen interest in this subject, to try and dissuade them from making a terrible mistake. That mistake, would be to put a committee at the head of the military.
1. Decision-Making Committee
In my experience, these words do not compliment each other. A committee, while more likely to reach the 'correct' decision, will take far longer to do it. I'd differentiate between the 'correct' decision, and the 'right' decision, which is based on taking decisive action quickly. In a military context, this is vital. Battles don't last long enough for a full review of every action, and decisions need to be made quickly. Of course, a leader can take into account the opinions and ideas of his or her subordinates, but the need for a decisive chief puts an end to the petty squabbles and bickering that is becoming so prevalent these days.
A committee is also very poor at establishing accountability. With a single figurehead, any decision made can be identified and responsbility apportioned. I would hate to see questionable decisions made, and for it to follow that the decision makers hide behind the animosity of a committee.
2. Compartmentalised Tension
Each of the GOC's (née CO's) of the branches has their own branch interests at heart. This is one of the great strengths under the current command structure, because each is able to appeal to the General Staff and triumph their cause. However, giving ultimate power with regards to the entire military to these parties, could cause a tension and power-struggle where branches are fighting each other for resources.
Having an elevated General Staff and Chief therein, allows for greater command and control over the branches, but also grants an overview of the military on the whole. Such an overview allows the higher command to apportion resources and make decisions according to the needs of the military on the whole, rather than having any regimental allegiance.
3. Democracy and the Military
I might conclude with the whole concept of voting in this manner. Voting is all very well and good for Parliamentary elections, but the leader of the military should not be a popularity contest, it should be the best person for the job. It's also incredibly silly to have Command electing their own leader. Firstly, Brigadiers (née suppliers) and to some extent GSO's (née 2/IC) aren't experienced enough to make such decisions, but the GOC's are too self-interested to be voting on such matters. Accordingly, a vote would need to take place over the entire military population, which is not only untenable, but also far less than ideal.
Putting a vote into the hands of Parliament is also unwise - forgetting that most know little about military matters, there is also the matter of partisan voting in the Commons, which would risk making the MoD once again a party-political position. The best proposal I heard was to have past-MoD/CGS of good standing make the decision, however, this is by no means a perfect solution.
A leader needs to have such security of tenure to make unpopular decisions, if they are in the best interests of the military as a whole. Granting the ability to add and remove a leader on a whim is not productive to a strong military, and this problem is multiplied tenfold when instead of a single leader, it is a committee that rules.
For this reason, I emplore you, both military command and the Prime Minister: do not hand our military over to a faceless committee.
---
For the cynics and critics out there, I will be trying to re-negotiate my way back into command. I feel that having invested a great deal of time and effort into the military, I have earned the right to comment on what is going on, and to do my best to avoid that time and effort being wasted. Over the coming weeks, I shall be monitoring the military closely, and will release articles where I see fit to offer my input on what's going on. I hope that people will see this for what it is: advice from experience. I have a vested interest in seeing the military flourish in V2, and shall not be letting any other agenda trump that.
Jhorlin
Former Chief of the General Staff
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
How many 'committees' have been set up now? 😛
more importantly, why aren't I in one?
Committees are ok in general as long as they serve their purpose and are then shut down but I agree, they shouldn't be running the military for any substantial period of time. The best way to choose the CGS would, IMO, be for the Prime Minister and members of Military command to have a discussion on it and then for the Prime Minister to make the final decision.
Oh its Jhorlin 🙂
Another good article.
There will be no committee. The heads of the different branches will all have access to cabinet, and the role of transferring orders from Phoenix and settling disputes will be handled by myself.
If this is true Keers, then these are worrying times, when a political figure is assuming a position as head of the military. You might well go down in history along with other famous military leaders, including Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Benito Mussolini!
My poor, poor military 🙁
I think the best way to decide the CGS position is to make a kind of informal decision.
Rather than people voting, discussing etc, just pick the best guy for the job, it's how the last 3 were picked and they all worked out pretty well. The General Staff used to provide this, but we've all gone inactive for various reasons (V2 sucking mainly).
Also, my poor, poor military 🙁
jhorlin, the military is a branch of the government, not the other way round. When people like kumnaa and hassan took control of the military, it worked fine.
If you vest military control in a political figure, it's not long until every month on the 5th there are sweeping changes in the military.
I might also add, that the cohesion brought by a CGS is invaluable in keeping the military together, and the constant driving force at the helm ensures a far less bumpy ride for the military.
so wait, keers is now playing CGS?
this is hilarious
Jhorlin, that's stupid. There have never been sweeping changes in the military made by the CP unless it was absolutely necessary (See: Kumnaa).
You basically called me Hitler for doing what? Arbitrating military decisions? Sillyness.
For assuming the role of CGS.
Eh. I'm with Jhorlin on this one. The PM should not be in charge of the Military, unless he is already CGS at the time OR is the best person for the job.
Which you are not.
The PM is in charge of the military anyway. Where they fight and so on. I haven't got any powers beyond that.
Organisation, promotion, skill management, deployment, funding and everything else is still organised by regimental COs. The only difference is the CGS position was abolished as Command decided it was unnecessary. End of argument.
Not really end of argument - just because something is the way it is, doesn't make it right : that's why we have a free media.
Unless Adolf Keers wants to abolish the free media too?
Firstly, the fact that you're calling me Adolf is just trolling.
Secondly, I don't have any more power than Woldy, or Kumnaa, or Hassan or any former CP.
Thirdly, Command decided on this, not me.
"I hope that people will see this for what it is"
"Unless Adolf Keers wants to abolish the free media too?"
I see butthurts and trolling.
umm... seems my days in SAS are numbered 🙁
I see the formation of militias becoming cool again.
This is so going to blow up in our faces *sigh*
To all military members: Do not let this propaganda make you fear for your military, you are in extremely capable hands, we assure you that the military will be the best it has ever been this time next month.
Jhorlin,
1) We are very capable command members and we can make quick decisions depending on the situation, we discuss the situation, and act appropiatly.
2) Most GOCs automatically do what is best for the military over anything else just though sheer decency, you take us to be some form of villan? Trust me, you dont put a years work, uncluding thousands and thousands of hours into an organisation just to get power. I love the military, always have and always will.
3) We are not voting on a CGS, we all agreed that one person alone was not capable to lead us as successfully into V2 as the GOC Council could.
"do not hand our military over to a faceless committee."
Face less committee? The GOC council consists of Me, Hazz, Count Drakula, Valorum and Kdogground2. We have put in a combined time of over 4 years of service to the eUK and her Military. Jhorlin if you really wanted what was best for the military you wouldn't be trying to damage its perfectly capable leadership in one of the most important times of its history.
Ironically enough, this could give rise to the next camelot.
(rofl)
Is GeorgeNorfolk seriously suggesting that if I wanted what's best for this military, I'd keep the Prime Minister's coup quiet?
good article! 🙂
Jhorlin, I think you might have left your tinfoil hat lying around somewhere. How can a Prime Minister coup power that already belongs to him? Silly. We just replaced one head of the armed forces with five heads of the various branches.
Is not a coup where a military comander tries to take over a politicol party? Kinda like that thing you did a few weeks ago.
If you hadn'a done that you'd probbly still be in charge of the army and this article would be moot.
Kinda looks like your complaining about a situation you helped create.
"Is GeorgeNorfolk seriously suggesting that if I wanted what's best for this military, I'd keep the Prime Minister's coup quiet? "
The PMs powers have not changed. The PM has always had absolute power over the military, you may believe otherwise but you believe wrong.
"Eh. I'm with Jhorlin on this one. The PM should not be in charge of the Military, unless he is already CGS at the time OR is the best person for the job.
Which you are not. "
As a SAS soldier of a year, I second this. It worked fine with Hassan, but I doubt it'd work with you. Keep the economic and political minds in the economy and politics. In this game, military really should have a separate commander. The Prime Minister will always have a strong influence here, but the Chief of General Staff should be somebody focused on the job without having to juggle other responsibilities.