The Morkin doctrines.

[Natmus]

I have been thinking a bit about formalising the things I consider before engaging in warfare. Some principles, that together make a doctrine.

Point 1:
Morkin/Fom should not engage in warfare unless it's of vital interest to the alliances.

Point 2:
Military action should only be undertaken if there is a good chance of winning.

Point 3:
Any military action should have clearly defined military and political/diplomatic objectives defined before the action starts.

Point 4:
The members of Morkin/FoM shall be in favour of this action and clearly diplomatically and/or militarily participate.

Point 5:
War should always be considered the last resort in achieving our objectives.

Considering our only major action together, point 3 was clearly lacking there, because the thing was hurried along by external factors. However, we joined in under point 1, with consideration of point 2. Point 4 was also largely achieved, and point 5 was not an option with Tyrant.

Later, with the Loki/fishcult affair, we obeyed point 5 and won a diplomatic engagement largely due to adhering to points 3 and 4.

Should we formalise these points always to have them answered before engaging in major military actions?

[Shendemiar]

natmus said:

Point 1:
Morkin/Fom should not engage in warfare unless it's of vital interest to the alliances.

I'd keep our doors open to enter any confilict we see fit. Who decides if war should be entered? We need majority of us to argee before we can demand everyone to stand behind the decission. We do need something like this to keep the loose cannons at bay too, but more of that later.

Point 2:
Military action should only be undertaken if there is a good chance of winning.

Like the winter solsctice? I agree we need guidelines but i dont see the point of this point. Part of our prestige is that we do start even losing wars if we want to. Its also wery hard to interpreter the odds beforehand.

Point 3:
Any military action should have clearly defined military and political/diplomatic objectives defined before the action starts.

I agree.

Point 4:
The members of Morkin/FoM shall be in favour of this action and clearly diplomatically and/or militarily participate.

Yes, when the conflict is not selfcaused, or offensive is officially agreed, everyone must participate. People responsible of organization need to have lists of all members and take notes of who is taking iniative, whos told to do waht, whos reported back and so on...

Point 5:
War should always be considered the last resort in achieving our objectives.

Yes.

Should we formalise these points always to have them answered before engaging in major military actions?

Something like this yes.

Point X:
Any use of force against even idle players needs to be notified here beforehand or in case of troubles alliances will not back one up.

[eproxy]

natmus said:

Point 3:
Any military action should have clearly defined military and political/diplomatic objectives defined before the action starts.

Whilst I too agree with this point I do think that it may hinder us in the long run; one reason why the Tyrant war seemed to be so initially successful was because we caught -S- off balance. By delaying our action we might have given them the opportunity to fortify their position in terms of alliance cohesion and militarily. Our 'exit' to this conflict was somewhat slow due to the process of us defining our own precise political/diplomatic objectives yet this did not seem to hinder our general objective of getting Tyrant out of the game. Thinking about it that was our objective, further political/diplomatic objectives were set up to prevent repercutions from the rest of [-S-]. So I ask how specific must such objectives be? A trade-off must be made between discussing conflicts and being in them. I make another note here being that our 'jump in' tactics along with circular mails seems to be the our most effective weapon.

shendemiar said:

Point X:
Any use of force against even idle players needs to be notified here beforehand or in case of troubles alliances will not back one up.

Should this extend to farming? Or perhaps just spying/colonising?

[Arminius]

I think we need to distinguish between 'idle' and 'inactive'. Just because someone is slow in building up his/her isle doesn't make them a target. But if there is no activity at all, and no reply to messages, then that should be fine. Though with care, should they be active after all.

[Natmus]

I took a good deal of source searching to find where I get the inspiration for the principles, it came from a book I read 8 or 9 years ago. The inspiration is a doctrine formulated be a somewhat well-known U.S. politician. There's a catapult for anyone with a guess that comes close to who that might be.

Anyway, a few comments:

Point 1:
Morkin/Fom should not engage in warfare unless it's of vital interest to the alliances.

It's allways a question what our vital interests may be. But the point is that we don't go to DEFCON 1 for triffling matters like accidental raids on new colonies or double colonisations. All the small things that can be discussed with an opponent and worked out should be dealt with diplomatically. With things like attacking multis and things in that magnitude, we need to decide on our best interest, both our position in the game and the balance of the game itself.

Point 2:
Military action should only be undertaken if there is a good chance of winning.

Sure, we might one day become suicidal and attack someone who can beat us on this server. But until that day, we must expect to function like a going concern and consider our longterm survival.
It may be hard to foresee all possibilities, but using our best estimates we should look for winnable wars.

Point 3:
Any military action should have clearly defined military and political/diplomatic objectives defined before the action starts.

eproxy has a good comment to this principle. The idea is that we only start an action when we know what we want it to result in. In the case of Tyrant, we wanted him gone, but we didn't quite know what should happen to his isles. Arminius did a good job negotiating without any directions from the est of us, but next time we should have a firmer grasp of not only the goal, but also the means. In modern political gibberish, we should make a roadmap that defines both the means and the end.

Point 4:
The members of Morkin/FoM shall be in favour of this action and clearly diplomatically and/or militarily participate.

This is kind of the "dictatureship of the majority" clause. Without making any strict rules of two-thirds or three-fourths majorities, we need to have the members behind any action we undertake. Internally we are all equals, and it's not admins or diplomats that decide what to do and then the rest has to follow. Everybody has an equal say.
However, once a decision has been made by a significant majority, everybody is expected to follow it, nomatter their own personal feelings on the matter.

Point 5:
War should always be considered the last resort in achieving our objectives.

Should be obvious enough. Whenever something is going on, we try to reason with whoever that may be. We always reserve the right to use force if all else fails, though.

A hint for those who look for the inspiration of the Doctrine: One of Reagan's men. He died last year.

[Natmus]

Arminius claims the cat. That shouldn't hinder the rest of you to figure out who it is, just for the sport of it

[Natmus]

Even if Arminius won the cat (yes, I gave one clue too many, and most probably guessed it without bothering to look it up), I had hoped for a bit more discussion on this subject.

To start with, let's look at the historical inspiration for what I modestly call the Natmus Doctrine above. Mainly it's the Weinberger Doctrine, after Caspar Weinberger, the U.S. War minister. After the failed U.S. involvement in the Libanese civil war, where the marines had been deployed with the general order "to keep the factions apart", our friend Caspar decided that it required some though before committing forces. He came up with these principles:

The Weinberger Doctrine:

1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

Sound princlipes, especially from a Reagan man, and the general good sense were reused in the later Powell Doctrine before the 1st Gulf War, when Colin Powell was Chief of Staff:

The Powell Doctrine:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

This sound doctrine only lasted through the 1st Gulf War, after which the Elder Bush proclaimed a New World Order. The decision to land troops in Somalia wasn't quite in line with neither the Weinberger or the Powell Doctrine, and of course nobody consulted any of these doctrines before the latest Bush started his wars.
As an interesting related discussion, as Colin Powell was foreign minister during the start of the 2nd Gulf War, how many of his own principles form the Powell Doctrine was adhered to?

[Shendemiar]

Any number of fancy doctrines will not help if the vision of word is twisted.

"The origin of all wisdom is to accept facts."

And we all know how realistic is the neo-con vision is.

[digital]

Point 1:
Morkin/Fom should not engage in warfare unless it's of vital interest to the alliances.

Point 2:
Military action should only be undertaken if there is a good chance of winning.

Point 3:
Any military action should have clearly defined military and political/diplomatic objectives defined before the action starts.

Point 4:
The members of Morkin/FoM shall be in favour of this action and clearly diplomatically and/or militarily participate.

Point 5:
War should always be considered the last resort in achieving our objectives.

The Powell Doctrine:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

Comparing the two they are very similar however I feel that Powell's doctrine is more comprehensive. Adoption of the Powell doctrine is vital to a successful peaceful alliance. Once the doctrine has been investigated then it should be put to diplomatic vote within either FoM or FoM and participating alliances (the latter being less important).

In addition to this it is stated in the Natmus doctrine that clear objectives should be outlined. This has to be done before war is commenced but should be able to change due to unforeseen circumstances throughout the conflict.

In all honesty I've just repeated what's already been said but never the less its a sound doctrine that should serve us well.

[eproxy]

Stick to the Natmus one; it's much less 'wordy' for those of us who are not so proficient at English

[SkulkrinBait]

US military policy is better than Morkins?

LOL

[Natmus]

skulkrinbait said:

US military policy is better than Morkins?

LOL

In theory. The application of the theories by the current government ("administration" in U.S. terms) is severely lacking

[Harlequin]

natmus said:

skulkrinbait said:

US military policy is better than Morkins?

LOL

In theory. The application of the theories by the current government ("administration" in U.S. terms) is severely lacking

Don't be shy Mads, get your letter of appliaction in now...

[bishop]

The Powell Doctrine:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

Ultimately, these can only ever be guidelines, in my opinion. That is, questions that ought to be asked before going to war, rather than absolute rules. For example, if America was actually attacked by another country, why should they need to make sure that they have an exit strategy in place and genuine broad international support before they retaliate?

I think we should perhaps treat the Natmus doctrine on the same basis. There will never be a set of rules that covers all eventualities, you have to treat each case on its merits.

[intchanter]

I suggest that we write these up as a form and post it sticky, with a notice that any movement that we go to war should start with the form being filled out and posted. Said form could use any combination of the doctrines mentioned on this thread.

That shouldn't cause a significant delay for time-critical operations, will allow members to vote for or against the action from a stronger position of knowledge, and may help us avoid involvement in affairs that we would later regret.