(05-07-2015, 08:10 AM)Wolf Wrote: While I will always respect and obey the Law of The South Pacific, I will always put the opinion of my troops first, as they are the ones who are most effected by any changes to policy.

The Delegate has to answer for any screw ups, in the eyes of the rest of the game. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has to repair relations that a botched military operation might damage. And, of course, the Assembly bears ultimate responsibility, as it elects and can recall any public official.

Something that's missing from this kind of thinking is that the SPSF affects those who aren't members, too. That's why I care about what it does-- it impacts my job. Kris has been Delegate, which is why he cares. As Minister of Foreign Affairs, I do not get to create a firewall around the ministry and do whatever I want, with only my deputies' opinions mattering. The same thing applies to the Minister of the Army, his or her Generals, and the Ministry's troops.

A lot of the antagonism stems from this fairly recent desire for the military to be off limits and the Minister of the Army's own personal fiefdom. This isn't how it used to operate. Ideally, the MoA and the MoFA should be in regular talks about how military missions affect foreign affairs, and vice-versa. That can't happen if we're operating under this idea that the SPSF isn't subordinate to any other arm of the region, as if it's an independent force just loosely associated with the Coalition.

So there's one concrete thing that the Ministry can do-- be in regular contact with the MoFA, especially on missions that implicate our allies (either by working with or against them, or working with or against their enemies).

Having a mission log is also a good idea. It could be as simple as a stickied post in the MoA forum with a table of missions, who participated, what region was targeted, what kind of mission it was, if it succeeded, etc.