Two Hands On The Sword Analysis

Two Hands on the Sword: Civil-Military Relations From the outset, U.S. civil-military relations have constituted an agreement between the American people, the civilian government, and the armed forces. According to Frank G. Hoffman (2008), it is the civil hand that determines when to draw the sword from its scabbard and provides the policy to guide its use. Hoffman further explains that it is the military that sharpens the sword and wields it in combat (2008). Given this relationship, it is critical for military leaders to understand and appreciate the trust the American People place in the Soldiers that choose to serve on behalf of the Nation. In the Army, Army Doctrine Reference Publication 1 (2015) (ADRP 1) explains that “[e]xternal trust is the confidence and faith that the American people have in the Army to serve the Nation ethically, effectively, and efficiently” (p. 3-1). A U.S. Army Captain’s primary responsibility in the civil-military relationship is, …show more content…
Every leader is responsible for upholding the Army values and ethic to preserve the agreement between the American people and the military. U.S. Army Captains and Junior Officers must understand how internal, unit-level trust impacts the overall civil-military relationship. “Civilian authority over the military is established and codified in our Constitution and is the mechanism by which the American people, through their elected and appointed officials, exercise oversight of the military” (ADRP 1, 2015, p. 6-2). A commitment to ethical leadership and fair and impartial discipline ensures unit-level trust and by extension, helps foster a trusting civil-military relationship. Therefore, the greatest responsibility for an Army Captain with regards to civil-military relations is understanding how internal trust at the unit-level will foster the external trust that is the bedrock of the Army’s agreement with the American