So do you also disagree with the premise of the government providing to this service, or only that it’s not the stated role of embassies to do it?

In deciding it’s quite reasonable to stop, is the thinking that “mission creep” = bad, so it justifies stopping something regardless of the big picture benefits? Or do you not consider the benefits significant?

Given a business with many departments, say you notice one department has some mission creep but somehow it’s also increasing profitability for the company overall.

What do you focus on - only mentioning stopping the department mission creep, or first mentioning people should make damn sure the value is preserved as they consider any reorganization?