Citing your memo, requesting this report, I submit the following report conducted by the Defense Council.

On the personnel cutback:
While the creation of a reserve and nationalized local defense forces are on our table of possible options in the cuts to the defense budget, the request of cutting personnel considered non-active by the Chief of State, implied to be a majority of the Army, is...ill-advised. While perhaps putting them on a half-time status and allowing them to seek civilian work at the same time can apply to those holding a support MOS. Those holding a combat MOS are highly restricted, unless seeking mercenary work, in which case the Defense Council objects to possible outsourcing of the said personnel all together. This would pose a problem in, 1.) having unrestricted, uncontrolled military forces operating in areas said forces should be restricted and controlled. and 2.) increasing the dangerous work of privatized military.

There also seems to be tones of the need of sudden change on this matter. Unfortunatly, that isn't practical nor possible. The Defense Council and High Command certainly need time to impliment changes of this category. And while the general proposal of the Chief of State is sound in principle, it is not practical. If such a change is to occur, we propose that: The current forces of the Army and Starfighter Corps be halved. Half shall remain active duty, while the other hald be drawn down to federal reserve status as well as federalized defense force, known as the Republican Guard, which will operate under the authority of the local government (including the local government covering the paychecks and general day-to-day affairs, etc.). Guard units can be nationalized at any time for any operations required. Reserve and Guard personnel receive the same amount of pay per day as the active duty personnel, however they both serve on a one weekend a month, two weeks a year basis (plus any time in which their unit may be placed on alert or called up for federal service). Within these units, essential personnel will remain active duty. The Navy shall also establish a Reserve amongst its support personnel. We believe this idea meshes the reform wanted by the Chief of State, and the desire of maintainance of an effective fighting force capable of responding to any crisis by the Defense Council. While dramatically reducing the number of active duty personnel, but allowing the reserve method to take place, this allows all current defense personnel to remain employed.

On the force projection cutback:
We believe that the reduction of the total force projection is unnecesarry and dangerous, at this current time in which the peace is still relatively unstable. Not to mention, there seems to be no consideration of the economic impact such a move would have. Not only would military personnel be out of a job, but civilians as well. From dockworkers who conduct maintainance, to the contractors we use every day to help streamline the NRDF in application of services not incorporated in our personnel planning. The arguement that this is costly, we differ to strong economic conditions on that subject. The current taxes do not strain out population, and are low, especially when compared to the oppressive conditions elsewhere. Of course we refer to the federal level, planetary conditions are another matter and do not apply to the federal defense. If we undertake any force projection cutback, and equal movement must be carried out by the Remnant. Any sort of cutback will be severly damaging to our capability to provide an effective, if present, defense. Just because the Remnant has come to peace with us, does not mean that others have. There are several rogue warlords still at war with us. There are still countless independent worlds and systems, to which we have not been the kindest, that are still out there. And then there is the unknown.

On Acherin reference:
This is a controversial issue, one viewed merely as a dangling out a piece of candy to the Chief of State's supporters to keep them happy. The heroics could be debated heavily at Acherin, as we still are trying to get a handle on what actually occured there. Accusations of piracy and war crimes still sit in the air, and we find it offensive to the beings of the NRDF that this event has been so glorified by the Chief of State, unlike any other previously. The reason for no coordination is there was no coordination. The Acherin Resolution was to be carried out by the New Republic and the New Republic Defense Forces, not Neimoidia, or Brentaal, or the InterGalactic Mining Core. It was an impediment to the situation that they engaged in such actions, and prevented any chance of a peaceful outcome that would result in the loss of no life. We ask that the Chief of State tone down his backing of the Acherin reference. Say what you may on the floor, as it is your right as a sentient being for free speech, but please refrain from using such a polarizing issue in official documents and policy.

In summary, your good friends should not dictate your policy. The common good for all people of this Republic and the galaxy should dictate your policy. We believe that the personnel changes suggested and now refined, are actually for the best considering our current position. However a general force reduction, would be costly, and not to our wallets. This Peace At Any Cost policy is detremental to our defense, and the moral of our servicebeings. Countless offenses in the name of appeasing the Remnant, sacrificing the good name of the NRDF and the Republic itself are wreckless and irresponsible, and to be quite blunt, frightening. The Remnant continues to oppress, you want to sacrifice millions of jobs in the New Republic. The NRDF continues to defend our space from violent acts of war and terrorism, you dirty their name. Concerning Bimmiel, you didn't want anything to hear of the actual result, the testimony of our crews, or what an investigation could merit, only how to make the Remnant happy and what they claimed to happen. This is the most sickening defense policy of all, and should we contiune down this path, we have a dark future ahead of us.

NOTE: This document's release was delayed by standard procedure, requiring submission to each member of the Defense Council for one week before public release.