The crux of the matter here is that Unibot realises he can't currently ban the SPSF from raiding, but he fundamentally wants to stop raiding at all costs because that is the one of the key remaining roadblocks to his defender vision for TSP. You can see that in the examples he gives, his objection to raiding is basically that it will upset defenders, which is namely himself.

Military gameplay is a major source of activity, not always positive, but without it TSP will be weakened on the global stage. If you admit as a region and executive you are so divided that you can't even engage in military actions for fear of creating internal conflict, then that surely reduces the regions significance in gameplay, a major potential source of activity. Choosing to avoid taking actions on military issues for fear of creating controversy is a good way to incapacitate a region, not to improve it - as indeed Unibot's essay "Paradise Found" shows, excessive neutrality can result in a "dead-on-arrival regional military".

The philosophy here seems to be, if you can't control it, kill it. This is a long standing defender approach to military matters that predates Unibot even. Once SPSF is dead as an institution, we can always create a "National Guard" or something that is only permitted to engage in defender activities. After all, that wouldn't be as controversial as aiding those damn independent allies of ours, and their immoral raiding activities.

If you accept the fundamental point that working with our independent allies is too risky and bad for our image - as Unibot posits - then thats where you end up. I'd argue that it's good for our image to be seen to actively engage militarily, and that we should be looking to follow the highly successful model TNP has created militarily.

Why can't we do that? What or who is standing in the way of creating a successful dynamic military because every time we do something, they criticise it for not fitting in with their interests? Something to think about.