I often hear people say, "I would have joined the military, but I have problems with authority." What people that say this line do not understand is that for myself it is an immediate red flag to verify anything else we discuss, and to have any deals in writing before moving forward. This is because they have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of what authority is, and what the foundation of the US military is.

The military is in essence the state's means of exercising violence on a national scale. The threat and use of violence requires trust. This might seem counterintuitive on the surface. However, if you threaten violence unless somebody takes an action and then you go ahead and are violent towards them, they will not comply next time. After all you are going to attack either way, so they might as well conserve whatever resource it is you are requiring for their own use to counter your violence. Likewise, the use of violence to achieve an end is only handy if the other side knows you will stop short of their life to achieve your goal. If it is a life and death situation in all circumstances, then there is no compromise and no promise other than death your enemy has no reason to do anything but seek your total destruction.

The foundation of the US Military is therefore trust. Almost every regulation or joint publication deals with the building, maintenance, and use of trust in some form. Trust must be built and maintained. It is built by repetition of simple tasks and verification of the steps used to complete those tasks. This provides the unit, NCOs, and Officers reason to have good faith in each other, and the verification in paper to demonstrate how that good faith has been earned. The regulations show this by providing what tasks each person in the unit should be doing, who should be verifying it is done, how to remedy situations where processes are stymied, and most importantly how to communicate difficulties, and normal operations throughout the force.
Often when young soldiers ask me about or take exception to my reviewing what has been done, or planned they believe it is because I do not trust them. This is inaccurate, and I take pains to explain this point to them. By fully understanding what it is they do I can verify their good judgement and if questioned demonstrate my own knowledge of their processes. If something goes sideways I know how the soldier will handle it because they have already informed me of such, and shown their capability.

Trust is most important when dealing with the unknown. Because of this it is important to always expand what is known and reduce uncertainty as much as possible. A portion of the Creed of the Non-Commissioned Officer states, "My two basic responsibilities will always be uppermost in my mind: the accomplishment of my mission, and the welfare of my soldiers." This is because trust is a two way street. Not only must I trust my soldiers but they must also have reason to trust me. The mission must come first. If I placed the welfare of each of my individual soldiers before the mission I could not accomplish iat, because I could not risk my soldiers' lives.
Therefore the soldiers under my responsibility must know I will keep their welfare as the second most important thing to me. I cannot lie to them and say it is the most important because lies destroy trust. However they must know that if I do risk them it will be for the mission, and it will be in the most responsible, and safe manner I can. This theme of responsibility to the soldier is repeated throughout the Creed. In the first stanza the last line is "I will not use my grade, nor position to attain pleasure, profit, or personal safety."

In the second stanza this is continued with the following lines, "All Soldiers are entitled to outstanding leadership; I will provide that leadership. I know my Soldiers and I will always place their needs above my own." This is imperative, and good NCOs regularly try to get extras for their soldiers at their own expense (though not out of our own pocket, as that leads to its own issues). I cannot jeopardize the mission, but if nothing is pressing I try to get my enlisted off early on the days I can. If there is a simple task keeping the soldiers around and I can do it I will knock it out so they can go home.  This is not because I am exceptional, but because this is the role of an NCO, something I have seen NCOs of every tier in the Army do. It is regularly communicated from the top of my unit down through the NCO chain of responsibility in order to ensure it is a part of our culture.
The building of such culture is deliberate. During NCO professional development meetings often the topic of conversation is not how to accomplish mundane tasks, but how to build culture, what our culture is, and why it is the way it is. The concept of the servant leader is often used. This is not touchy feely soft stuff but discussion on how to utilize yourself to facilitate the growth of soldiers into competent leaders that are not toxic. When to step in, when to let things shake out, how to handle failure, and always how to build trust.

One of the more important forms of trust building in the military is something that people like Tucker Carlson will never understand: the EO and SHARP program. Sexual harassment destroys trust in an unit, even if everyone in it is male and the harasser only targets females. The harasser cannot be trusted around the other soldiers' spouses or families. They cannot be asked to help with the mundane tasks such as picking up kids. You do not want to go to bars or social gatherings with them because you do not want to be responsible for their misdeeds or near them. These are simply the practical considerations, nevermind not wanting to be associated with someone that acts in such a way, and naturally wanting to confront and stop the behavior.

EO is much the same way. No soldier can or should trust I have their welfare at heart if I discriminate against them, or really any person for the reasons covered by EO. Again from the Creed "ALL Soldiers are entitled to outstanding leadership; I will provide that leadership."

The entire third stanza of the Creed is about earning and maintaining respect, loyalty, and integrity in all of my actions. In so many words: trust in myself and in my actions.
The military is unique that lack of trust in and by itself is grounds for removal from position. You do not have to actually do anything criminal or untoward other than give the perception that you cannot be trusted with some aspect of upholding good order and discipline. This can come from the bottom up more often than people realize. Part of the reason it takes so long to rise in the ranks is to give the soldier time to build their social network. If enough soldiers in a unit have lost trust, and that word gets around through those networks a commander could find himself reassigned to a less strenuous job that is within their capabilities.
In the private sector I often had to work with people I could not trust. In the Russian military, corruption is so rampant that if you don't take part you are not trusted. However even if you do you will never be fully trusted because no one can trust corruption. Since the military is violence it must be ready to meet all acts of violence against the state from small interest groups with overwhelming force. To do otherwise invites the destruction of the state and the military itself since all questions for that society devolve into a question of who has the greater means of violence. However, the society as a whole needs to be able to trust that the military will not come after its components provided they do not come after the state with violence first.

fiddlehead: "How can we ask young men and women who have decided to risk their lives for America, even die for America, to affirm that our country is inherently racist?" former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wrote for Fox News last month.

This farking asshole.

He doesn't get it. We don't sign up to affirm it is inherently racist. We knew it was in the past, we fight to reject that history and allow everyone a chance to be more than their flawed beginnings. Even the process of training soldiers is always one of hope, that if the training is followed and the soldier learns they will be better than they were when they initially joined. That even if they only stay in for a single term they will use that to better themselves after and be good representatives of what the military can, should, and must be for all Americans.

Recruitment should be an opportunity. It should not be anyone's only opportunity, but it should be available to everyone possible, regardless of gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, color, nationality of origin, or creed.

Sgt Otter: We have two briefings a year, one of Equal Opportunity and one on prevention of sexual harassment.  That's it.

They're basically the same ones I've sat through for the past 20+ years

Recently we have had more directed training on the dangers and recruitment methods of white supremacist organizations. These have been very canned with limited room for discussion, and therefore not what I would consider ideal. They are a start in the right direction though.

Frankly that is probably what these assholes are trying to squash.

rewind2846: fiddlehead: "I 100% believe the military is woke. I see daily minorities, overweight people and women not adhering to military standards," another said. "Nobody corrects them due to the fear of being fired and labeled a racist or a sexist."

What complete shiat.

If someone is overweight when they join the military, they will correct that in about ten weeks (Navy). How the f'k can someone be "corrected" for being a minority or a woman?

I 100% believe this person is full of shat.

In the Army they have about a year to correct that deficiency from their BSAB date. Frankly basic and AIT will likely handle any issues by themselves.