#Overview
The question is clear: "how would we survive an assault by a peer intent on destroying us?". So far, the answer has been: "we wouldn't", and to an extent, that holds true. However, a comprehensive review has shown that clear obstacles exist which we are not actively working to circumvent or overcome, or remove. With that in mind, President Impendi commissioned the Ground Warfare Review (GWR), to spend one year evaluating potential avenues for progress, in an Army which has repeatedly defaulted to stagnancy.
#Findings
- That the Army must expand recruitment in order to fulfil its ambitions of scale. The Army's stated goal is to approximately double the size of frontline formations, yet has made no significant attempt to make changes necessary for the expansion of those formations.
- The Senate must implement the Army's stated requirement for government investment into Military R&D. With no effective budget for the research and development of Ground Warfare Systems, tge GWR finds that the technological gap in Peer conflict will be insurmountable in a few short years, and is already wide.
- The government must not give up on the long game, by becoming dependent on imported superior equipment. Many peers across Africa have become unhealthily dependent on others to develop their war machines - to the point that some cannot even repair their own equipment. The Lwandan Defence Industry sector is healthy, we have a strong export market in aircraft for instance - and we can't afford to sabotage it by ignoring important investments ahead of new results.
- The Lwandan Port Cities should not rule out the purchase of foreign equipment, however. Important gaps exist within our Army's equipment, tactics, and logistics, and some of those can be solved by ensuring we are willing where necessary, to use Occam's Razor to shave persistent unwanted growth where we find it.
(Some DP into Army stuff)
I have always interpreted the Masonic secrets as a reminder of the need for circumspection-- never to gossip needlessly, to hold one's tongue, and keep each other's confidences as we would not like our own secrets to be divulged. This circumspection is one of the characteristics of a really good man.
Yet like a lot of virtues, there is an obverse side: it can be misused as a license for misdeeds. If one can be sure that brotherly prohibitions against the tattle-tell will ensure that you will never be called into account for your actions, you will be more likely to undertake dubious actions for selfish reasons.
I admit that the culture being discussed in the Kavanaugh hearings have piqued my interest. The media is talking about a "frat boy" culture that enables the abuse of others. I really don't want to get into a discussion of these particulars of guilt or innocence, or whether Judge Kavanaugh should be confirmed.
However, this is a charge that is often leveled against Freemasons, one that seems more realistic than many of the others. We usually respond with evidence that we really don't cross that line. Countenancing actual, legal crimes is abhorrent to our oaths to put our other duties first. My question for the brothers is: Where is that line and how do we recognize it?
It seems a wise thing to do?
