09/02/2026
Military cohesion is rightly celebrated as one of the foundations of operational effectiveness. But can an organization’s greatest strength also become a source of risk?
Recent discussions on military identity, unification and tradition illustrate how deeply cohesion shapes military culture. Trust, shared purpose and a common identity enable individuals and units to perform under extraordinary circumstances.
Yet effective organizations also depend on people who are willing to question assumptions and challenge consensus.
In this edition of , The Realist explores The Strength and Danger of Cohesion, and why effective organizations need both unity of purpose and diversity of thought.
# # #
The Strength and Danger of Cohesion
By The Realist
For military organizations, cohesion is one of the keys to success. From the Patricias at Frezenberg to Ukraine’s 93rd Mechanized Brigade defending Pokrovsk, soldiers have accomplished near-miracles fighting with comrades they trust. Cohesive organizations display unity of thought, purpose, and effort, functioning as a single entity. Military operations bring together diverse capabilities to achieve an aim. During an attack, each element has a part to play: artillery isolates and suppresses the objective; armour destroys; engineers breach; and infantry clears, all enabled by communications. As important as cohesion is, an excess can result in groupthink, where followers become unwilling to challenge consensus, and that can lead to disaster.
One way to counter groupthink is to encourage and promote diversity within the organization. This diversity cannot be ceremonial—we are seeking diversity of opinion, not appearance. Leaders must seek out and encourage diverse voices within their organizations. This does not mean a free-for-all; while leaders seek and accept advice, they must then make decisions. While the strength of an organization lies in cohesion, it is essential to accept and encourage diversity of opinion to create the trust that underpins cohesion.
A cohesive country can achieve great things. A fractured country becomes, in Abraham Lincoln’s words, “a house divided against itself,” and that house cannot stand.
One way countries achieve cohesion is through shared suffering and a common enemy. A classic populist trick is to create an internal or external enemy to distract the population from government failings. Sometimes, countries get handed an enemy. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has solidified Ukrainian identity. Hamas’ attack on Israel unified the country. Trump’s musings about annexing Canada created the “elbows up” movement and saved the Liberal Party. A similar dynamic may be playing out in Iran, as the ruling party consolidates power and beats back the opposition.
Sun Tzu argued that the supreme art of war was to defeat the enemy without fighting. One way is to let your adversaries defeat themselves: pull at the loose threads in the fabric of a society until it comes apart. Trump and his cronies are trying this tactic against Canada now, supporting the Donbas Albertans and the separatist movement. The tactic is unlikely to work against Canada, but a lighter touch in Iran might have resulted in the leadership change that country so desperately needs. Instead, by going in hard and heavy, the U.S. provided the Iranian government with the shared suffering and common enemy they so desperately need to keep Iranians under control: they have increased cohesion in Iranian society and thereby ensured the regime’s survival.
