Given the growing unstable nature of the NationStates world and Canada often being chosen as a refuge, it would be a good time to reestablish the Dogs of War.

Does it seem worthwhile reviving The Dogs of War to be what the orginal intention and philosophy were, or would it make more sense to incorporate them fully into the Canadian Intelligence Agency. Such a merger would mean that all Dogs of War Alliance members would become members of the Canadian Intelligence Agency by defualt and vice-versa.

The original philosophy of The Dogs of War Alliance is:

Purpose of The Dogs of War Alliance

1) Defend Canada from invasion.

2) Fan the flames of democracy throughout Nation States by bringing the fight, both overtly, and covertly, to regions controlled by dictatorial regimes, and deposing those who rule by fear and intimidation.

Overview

Both the Dogs of War Alliance and Canadian Intelligence Agency are subsidiary organisations of the Defense Ministry and, as a direct result, shall both be accountable to the Minister of Defence or Deputy in case of absense.

The primary aim, although not exclusively, of the Dogs of War will be to Defend Canada's Regional borders from invasion but also stand ready to act upon unequivocal evidence from the Canadian Intelligence Agency that a regime, action, or proposed action is in direct contradiction of the term 'democracy'.
This statement will hold true to both existing allies of Canada and independent Regions/Nations. If an alliance is forged through this process, it can only strengthen Canada's international reputation and standing within the world.

All activities shall be entered into with an agreement of Cabinet, and shall take every precaution to ensure the security of the Region.

The full thread can be found here.

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

I personally think that Canada does need to have a limited military presence. It should be restricted to liberating and defending democratic regions from raids by non-democratic regions. Clearly, cabinet would have to approve of the scope of any large foreign involvement.

I think that it would be useful to merge the departments so that we can better synergize our small military/intelligence resources. I also think that the combined department should have a less dramatic name. I think that the Canadian Defense Force or some such name would suggest a more broad and less aggressive role, and I think that this would be more in keeping with the Canadian image.

My comments in this weeks Cabinet Disclosure Report cover this indirectly, with particular cocnern about the Regional population.

Image is everything unfortunately. It should also be pointed out that The Dogs of War are essentially a 'home-gaurd'. We are not currently able to manifest the Nation-power to present a military force. In the future, I would hope the case to be different. If Intelligence gathering is taken as a passive role, it yields nothing of use, only that which is already general knowledge.

The reasoning behind two separate Agencies was to avoid exclusivity. For a Nation to be a member of The Dogs of War it is a requirement to be of UN status, for obvious reasons. This is not the case with the Canadian Intelligence Agency, although it may become necessary to join. Some poeple decide not to join the UN. At the time, it was considered to be favouritist and so a compromise was agreed. Perhaps it is time to redress this policy decision. Initially, The Dogs of War were conceptualised to:

1) Defend Canada from invasion.

2) Fan the flames of democracy throughout Nation States by bringing the fight, both overtly, and covertly, to regions controlled by dictatorial regimes, and deposing those who rule by fear and intimidation.

(The complete Overview of The Dogs of War Alliance can be found here.)

Instead, they became the mainstay of Defence for the Region. It is very difficult to deploy UN Nations to places they are needed whilst retaining security in respect to the humber of Endorsements the sitting Delegate has. In order for Canada to realistically be able to deploy UN Nations to intercede in either a Regional or inter-Regional affairs a Regional population nearer five-hundred would be more appropriate. Ideally, around 15-25 percent of these would be UN, at a minimum, Endorsing the sitting Delegate (giving a minimum of 75 Endorsements). Even this isn't particularly secure, but is better than nothing.

If this were the case, we would need to ensure Regional security from crashers and griefers. Regional Security need to be tightened up, we would begin attract a lot of attention internationally as our historical position has been that of negotiation and mediation. We may also need to think about safegaurds for our own Delegacy, for which there is already a discussion underway in Cabinet following from a PM sent by bweezy for a review of the existing 'Code Red Procedures.'

I still don't see any reason against merging the departments. Considering any intelligence missions should be conducted with the utmost secrecy, I don't see how "image" would be alerted, as our overt methodology would simply be the same as the Dogs of War. The CIA should be neither seen, nor heard so their presence in a combined department should not affect matters, no?

I still think that a name change would have some PR benefit.

Niether do I, but was explaining the current organisation from a historical perspective. In order to understand the present, one must be familiar ewith the past, otherwise nothing is learnt. Surely this makes sense?

You misunderstand the methodology. The image reference was to The Dogs of War, not the Canadian Intelligence Agency. I am merely an advocate of the name for purely historical references again. Perhaps, as I have already stated, it is time to review the current policy. You must appreciate that these things take time and cannot be performed in the blink of an eye. Well, they could, but the confusion caused in the aftermath would take considerably longer to rectify than taking the proper courses of action.

Which they are currently not.

The probloem is that of an academic nature with reagrds to membership criteria, which is also a security precaution. To merge two Agencies where UN membership is the mutually exclusive constant would require a rethink of the entire stratification. It is a task I am prepared to undertake, but not until there has been more input.

PR is important, yes, but which is more important: a fluffy international image where time is spent nurturing relations, or the security of our Region? I think that the nurturing of Foriegn Relations is best left to the Ambassadors and remit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and defence of the Region best left to the Minsitry of Defence.

I think it would be a great idea to make the Dogs of War more active, but only if in allied regions that are being invaded (for a start, anyways). Perhaps later we could join a defensive alliance, in order to lighten the Defence Minister's workload?

This is a very bad idea. One that I will resist as strongly as I can.

I concur with HB on this.