Army Built on Trust, Essay Example

In so far as the United States Army is essentially grounded in a concept of teamwork, as clearly stated in the ADP-1, the success of the United States Army is impossible without a simultaneous concept of trust. The very possibility of teamwork, in other words, can only exist within a framework of trust as opposed to a rampant individualism. The solider must have confidence in his or her comrade so as to effectively carry out operations. Furthermore, trust must imbue the entire military, since, as the ADP-1 defines trust, it is the “assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something.” (ADP-1, 2-1). This definition can be broken down in too many levels.

Military operations conducted by the soldier are not conducted in isolation, but within a group setting, as the ADP-1 stresses. In this regard, therefore, trust speaks to the possibility of carrying out the military operation successfully. The solider must be assured that his or her comrade will also follow the objectives of the military operation. This form of trust can take many forms: for example, in the field of battle, trust may exist in terms of being ensured that a soldier looks after a wounded comrade. In the field of battle, trust can also play a crucial role in regards to tactics, since a key role in the potential success of these tactical decisions rest upon the soldier’s dedication to executing the tactical decisions made by the individual in command. Therefore, there is both a personal, ethical aspect to trust in terms of the relationships of soldiers to each other, as well as a pragmatic and operational element to trust, which speaks to the ultimate success or failure of military operations on the tactical level.

As the ADP-1 indicates, this trust does not only exist on the level of relationships between army soldiers in tactical situations. It also exists all along the chain of command, from the relation of the military to politics, as well as the relation of military to the public. In this sense, a relevant synonym for trust within the military becomes unity. Another term, therefore, for trust becomes unity of purpose.

In order to understand this concept, as the ADP-1’s remarks on the concept of “trust” indicate, it aids in thinking about the contrast to trust and unity of purpose: dissension and fragmentation. In the context of the military way of life, any type of doubt, dissension or fragmentation detracts from the unity of purpose and therefore places goals in question. When the goal is questioned, it becomes from the outset difficult to realize this goal: this is simply a logical conclusion, one of cause and effect in military life. Political decision makers have an obligation to the military, to provide precisely a unity of purpose, since it is the military that ultimately puts their lives on the line for such political decisions. There must be a conviction and a truth to these decisions, as the ADP-1, signifies, for these political decisions that lead to military strategic decisions and tactical decisions and operations to be sound.

Hence, a unified country leads to a unified military, and vice versa, a unified military leads to a unified country. It is in this sense that trust is crucial: trust means that the diverse elements that compose the army are working in harmony towards a collective purpose. Doubt in this sense is the greatest enemy of trust: doubt in one’s fellow soldier, doubt in the military operations the soldier carries out, doubt between the military and the politics, and doubt between the military and the greater public. Trust tries to eliminate this potentially devastating effect of doubt in the military and by placing it at the center of military life, as the ADP-1 writes, is crucial to not only military success, but the success of the country as a whole.