The Offered Solution: United America

Day 1,240, 07:52 • Published in USA USA • by Minuvas

I am not a political insider. Most of my knowledge of this game is almost entirely military, I have not (until recently) even looked at the political side of this game. Which is perhaps a statement about our military as it is (For better or worse, we avoid the politics). Though to pat myself on the back as not a total idiot, I do hold a degree in Political Science. Recent issues have brought the topic of the political integrity of our country now into the spectrum of national security. I think its time we get over this and look at compromise. There is Merit in the JCS because the Executive Branch lacks in experience (With rare exception, no single Secretary of Defense will have weeded himself through the vetting process in which people become apart of the Joint Chiefs). There is merit in a Secretary of Defense, because there needs to be a clear unity of Command. I would like to make the following proposal, and I’m sure our politicians can translate this into whatever legal speak they want to put out there…I believe these to be reasonable answers, and if they are not – I ask that you take what you like, discard what you don’t, and find a solution.

A National Security Council (To be named as seen fit for all I could care), seated by the following members:
The President
Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Senior Deputy Speaker (Someone specifically designated to vocalize congressional concerns about military action, and who has national security interest/clearance)
A rotating ranking member of one the three largest militias.

That’s 4 people total, with the obvious DECIDER to be the President himself. This council would allow the President to have all voices of the people, government, and military sector to be recognized when considering military action.
The President: (In these regards)
Appoints the SecDef
Appoints the CJCS
Is the Chair of the National Security Council
Is given access to the Joint Military Forum
Is the Sole Decider on how to manage the Official Military, they are the Executive Head and as such will not relinquish this authority and responsibility to Congress.
Congress:
Should be given generic non-OPSEC information in regards to budget information about the military. These requests should be made thru the SecDef, and they should coordinate with the SecDef and the President for all other military issues. The CJCS is not the advisory personnel to Congress, and therefore only in matters very specific and finite to military action under direct control by the CJCS should they be called to answer to Congress – not broad based military decisions under the direction of the President.
Secretary of Defense:
This person is in the end, essential because it provides for Unity of Command for all of America’s fighting forces (Something a CJCS cannot do with Militias, and Civilians). This position should be the advisor to the President on military affairs, a source of executive guidance to the official eUS Military as well as our Militia’s and the voice of the Military to Congress, and the Civilian World. They should be the enforcer of executive policy, and they should also be the eUS Military’s lobbyist and voice to Congress. The SecDef should have, on beckon, any information that is necessary to complete their job. Only the President, may choose the Chief and the Sec Def. They should be approved by the congress, but neither can be removed by Congress. This person should be given access to our Joint Military Orders, though access to every Branch forum is overkill. How do we define As necessary;

Neccesary Information SHOULD include:
# of Communes, # of Personnel and an Average Strength, How (in general) their budget is being spent: What % goes to what branch. Any Non-OPSEC information regardless of its type. Any very specific, very laborious work assignments should not be mandatory weekly tasks, but should be assigned with reasonable time lengths and completions.


It Should not Include:
Exactly what each person is making in an organization. A weekly Roster on every persons name, strength is a monstrously difficult task to expect.

None of the mentioned information is anything that is dictated to be reported to Congress, with the exception of the Generic (😵 based expenditure of the allotted budget. They can pass their own separate legislation should they wish for the President or the SecDef to brief this information to congress, because frankly it is important for our Government (The Exec/SecDef) to know military business – not all of this stuff is essential to the operation of congress, and some of it is certainly capable of providing an intelligence edge to our opponents. Congress should have to vote, with a 3/4th approval, to release specific information they wish to have from the Pres/SecDef rather than immediately being given this information on demand. There should be a certain level of discretion exercised by the President and the SecDef on what really is necessary for others to know. In the end the SecDef is a manager, a provider of executive guidance, and to ensure accountability. They are there to help with broad-based military decisions, but do not and should not interfere with specific decisions (Who gets promoted to what) in the military.
The Chief:
Any legislation dictating how the Chief manages their own internal military affairs should be thrown out. Their legal role should be defined in terms only in their responsibility to the President ,SecDef, and the Government. The only Congressional influence in this position should be to dictate what the SecDef CANNOT take away from this position. Only the President, may choose the Chief and the Sec Def. They should be approved by the congress, but neither can be removed by Congress. Congress should NOT be dictating how Branch CO’s are appointed, or Branch XO’s are appointed. They should be concerned with only how the Chief is selected by the President, and vet with whatever interview process they have to determine if they feel this person has the skill to hold the position. This should be a simple majority vote, and he should hold the position for at least 3 months. The Chief is the one who runs the official eUS Military branch, and as such should be given full discretion to decide policy within the eUS military - how its budget is used internally, policy regarding promotions and appointments, as well as which branch those who wish to hold political office must be located. To micromanage this person from the desk of the President, or the Gavel of the speaker - is wrong and weakens our defense network.
The JCS:
The Joint Chiefs themselves, and how they sit and how they are appointed will be left solely at the discretion of the CJCS. Since only the CHIEF himself should sit in on the National Security Council to advise the president, it should be the Chief’s discretion as to how their subordinate advisory group is organized and managed. To be honest, this is a realm Congress should not mess with – these are a group of men and women who know how to run their own organizations and when given flexibility will make the right decisions. The SecDef, or the Pres should NOT be excluded from JCS discussions (The Sec Def should be Welcomed to sit in on these discussions, and his feedback taken into account for subordinate branches). I believe these men and women can organize themselves in a manner to best protect their military secrets from what they perceive to be threads, better than Congress.
Amnesty:
Chief Bradley should not be removed from his position any should be protected from such for at least one more Presidential term, as well as any future disciplinary action related solely on his recent decission. Any member of the eUS military who decided to step down because of this conflict should be welcomed back and able to return to their previous position without penalty of seniority, rank or position. They should be given their former, and if not possible an equivalent, leadership position (if one was held). Any discharge related SOLELY (and not without other reason) to this schism, should be welcomed back as a brother. In addition, the Executive Office would recognize what has been labeled as “the eUS’s biggest military” as the official branches of the United States, once more. Full funding should be restored to the eUS Military immediately.

The New Recognized Military:
All new trainee's in the newest military would be sent to the TC, and processed and distributed normally to their branches. People holding Officer ranks in the new military should be placed in appropriate vacancies in the branch of their choice, if they meet all other branch requirements. Members such as General Deificus SHOULD be recognized for his position and contributions in this new Army, and he should be given similar authority and command in the old disenfranchised eUS Mil.
There is tremendous compromise and a lot of give and take on both sides in my suggestions. But it is clear, the Government needs to re-unite with its Military as much as the Military needs to return to the Government. To simply disenfranchise the military and proclaim it your hidden bastard child is just as wrong as refusing to obey legislation, whether or not we in the military community feel it to be poorly constructed and bias. I may not have answered to what many feel is THE answer, but I certainly have put forth ANSWERS. I read over the Congressional forums, and I've taken a good deal of feedback from my peers but the message is clear:

The Military Does not trust Congress
Congress does not trust The Military

This needs to cease, and there needs to be realistic trust between the Government and the Military.

Thank you for your time
Long Time Senior TC Officer
Short Time Junior Army Officer
Always one Bad Mother-Trucker
Minuvas