Monday, August 17, 2026

Hertling on Trust: ‘If I Don’t Return’

Review by Bill Doughty––

Hertling
Hertling’s book “If I Don’t Return” is much more than its meaningful subtitle: “A Father’s Wartime Journal.” The war journal is a vital part, but this book is also about history, philosophy,  self-reflection, self-help, and –– most especially –– leadership. It’s also about building character based on trust.

His book for everyone, because nearly everyone understands and values the importance of trust. Hertling shares many personal lessons and beliefs, including this gem:


“…Over the years, I've come to believe one thing. That life and leadership are forged by one's character. And character is molded by experiences but defined by integrity, shared trust, enumerated values, honest humility, and different kinds of love.” Shared trust!


“Trust,” along with the other qualities he lists, is a foundation of core values and good leadership. Hertling saw the value of trust in 1990/1991 during the First Gulf War, when he helped kick Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi army out of Kuwait.


Trust in Unity

George H. W. Bush
“Looking back now at Desert Storm, I see how trust was the thread running through it all. At the unit level, trust was instinctive and immediate. We built it in our squadron, and President George H.W. Bush [Navy World War II Veteran, left*] generated it in our citizens. Chairman Powell and Secretary of Defense Cheney reinforced it in their conversations with politicians and the American people. We often didn't have the same in our later conflicts.

In combat, you cannot hedge or calculate trust—it must be whole. 

On a Bradley or Abrams tank crew, drivers trust commanders to navigate through the night; gunners trust leaders to identify targets; wingmen trust each other to cover their flanks. Once proven, that trust became indestructible. That was what carried us through exhaustion, confusion, and chaos. Desert Storm also enjoyed broad trust at home: 

Its objectives were clear, the coalition strong, the war short. That was due, at least in part, to the fact that Desert Storm was a quick war, and Americans like quick wars, with a lot of explosions shown on TV. 

By contrast, trust would not be as stable during our later counterinsurgency and counterterrorism wars. Soldiers in combat zones continued to trust what they could see: their buddies beside them, their leaders in the field, their sense of mission, and their practiced competency. But they couldn’t personally affect the shifting political calculations in Washington, the support of the citizenry of the country, or the intelligence that shaped actions. The disadvantages of long wars — counterinsurgencies and counterterrorism fights that took much longer to generate success-and the fleeting attention span of our citizenry caused a loss of interest in what the professional military force (less than 1 percent of our nation) was accomplishing. And the results of Operation Iraqi Freedom (and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan) stretched that trust thin, often to the breaking point. The false intelligence about chemical weapons, the changing conditions and mission creep, and the president's advice to citizens to keep going to the malls contributed to that deterioration of interest and trust.”

Trust in Your Eyes and Ears

When a reporter told President Trump (left) the other day that Navy families are concerned about their Sailors because of deteriorating conditions aboard USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), he replied, “No they’re not.” When the reporter asked if the carrier was deployed too long, he replied, “No, no, no. Not nearly long enough.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth expressed gratitude to the Sailors aboard the carrier, but claimed news reports detailing poor living conditions and mental health struggles on the carrier were false or distorted and “completely misrepresented.”


But after a visit to USS Abraham Lincoln, Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander, U.S. Central Command, who is the top U.S. commander in the war with Iran, said, “I applaud Lincoln’s leadership –– the senior enlisted leaders in the Chief Petty Officers Mess in particular –– for stepping up and making mental health and crew resilience a leadership priority.”


In the face of rising prices and Americans’ concerns about the economy, Trump –– who along with his family is making billions of dollars while in office –– said several weeks ago, “"I don't think about Americans' financial situation, I don't think about anybody.”


Opinion polls show most Americans hear that lack of care and so have a lack of trust.


Trust in ‘Johari’


In “If I Don’t Return,” Hertling refers to more than a dozen other thinkers and authors. One of those authors is emergency medicine physician Dr. Omayra Mansfield, who wrote ‘The Trust Transformation.’

"In her book, Dr. Mansfield relayed a core message that is simple but profound: Before you can build trust in others  –– your patients, their families, your colleagues and leaders—you must first trust yourself. Leadership requires clarity of individual values, consistency of action, and authenticity of presence. She knows this is true in an emergency room, and I know it is true in a combat zone. It is something that must also remain true for citizens and policymakers. When trust is absent –– when leaders are inconsistent, opaque, or self-deceiving, and when employees or citizens don't feel a part of the team — trust quickly collapses. 


Many of those who study trust often revert to a model called the ‘Johari Window.’ It's a rhetorical tool used to explain self-awareness and trust between individuals. In combat, soldiers operate almost entirely in the ‘open quadrant’ of that theoretical window — we depend on what we know about each other, gained from close connection, shared hardship, and repetitive experiences that all lead toward trust. There are no illusions about fear, courage, or capabilities. But in other groups— larger teams in different situations — the Johari Window posits that participants often exist in the ‘hidden’ or ‘blind’ quadrants. Some individuals often withhold their full motives (hidden), fail to see their own limitations (blind), or are misled by information that is just not true.
 

The result is a breakdown in trust … I’m convinced that trust is the building block of relationships, leadership ... and life. Trust is gained in myriad ways, and, as I once heard someone say, trust is earned in drops but lost in buckets. Trust is relatively easy to build in small teams, if one knows what it takes to build it. But it is much harder to sustain when hidden motives, blind spots, egos, and personal agendas that are often present in larger teams enter the equation. 

Interestingly, military theoretician Carl Von Clausewitz described something similar in broader terms for warfare. He wrote of war as a paradoxical ‘trinity’ — a  balance of passion, chance, and reason — that found its practical expression in the relationship between the government, its army, and its people. Each had to trust the other. Citizens had to believe their government's cause was just. Armies had to believe their political leaders would use their sacrifices wisely. And governments had to trust their soldiers to execute with discipline and competence. If one leg of that triangle fails or is even oft kilter, if confidence collapses, the nation that goes to war will suffer significant consequences. Ukraine's resistance to Russias invasion in 2022 illustrated this perfectly: Ukraine's people trusted their government, its army trusted both the people and their leaders, and the government trusted the army enough to unleash it with broad support. That synergy sustained Ukraine when the odds seemed impossible. Trust, in that sense, is not just personal — it is strategic. 

As a nation — as a government, as citizens, and as an army — we were successful in building the trust needed to execute Desert Storm inside our units, between the government and the people, and between the people and the army. But during later wars, we found ourselves in a place where no military leader, and certainly no government, wants to be. Despite tough fighting by courageous soldiers, competent diplomacy of the State Department, and the desire of governmental officials to achieve stated goals, three of the other wars — Vietnam, Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and Operation Iraqi Freedom — were failures. In my view, a big part of the reason boiled down to an unbalanced Clausewitzian triangle. A lack of trust. 

To me, the lesson is simple. Trust is critical between people, between the citizenry of a nation and its government, and between governmental officials and their army. Find ways to build trust — improve communication, eliminate misinformation, define the mission, maintain humility, ensure competency and integrity, create understanding — and it will bring you closer to success. All seemingly easy, but to paraphrase Clausewitz, the simplest things are often the most difficult.”


Trust in Truth

Hertling writes, “What I learned from both Iraq and Ukraine is that opportunism thrives in the vacuum left by failed institutions. People who have no faith that their government will provide food, water, fuel, or security will take matters into their own hands.”


In the United States, great social change has been brought about both violently (the Civil War) and nonviolently (FDR’s New Deal after the Great Depression). MLK’s Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 60s achieved integration and LBJ’s Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act through a non-violent strategy but with violent repercussions


Hertling warns:

“In America, we've seen moments when institutions faltered and riots turned cities into places of fear and lawlessness. In those moments, ordinary people are swept up in mob behavior that tears at the fabric of community and civility.

The lesson is stark: Without trusted institutions, the human condition bends toward chaos. Leaders — whether military or civilian — must not only prepare to confront that chaos but also work tirelessly to prevent it by ensuring their people are cared for, protected, and respected. A government that cares for its people will always be more resilient than one that leaves them desperate.”

On a hopeful note, he writes, “… Chaos, if left unchecked, will consume everything. But with strong leadership, institutions built on trust, and the kind of professionalism modeled by leaders like Henadii Vorobiov in Ukraine, and later Barham Salih in Iraq, societies can resist the pull of opportunism and corruption and instead move toward stability and hope for the future.”


Trust in Communication


Hertling’s life’s path has led him into public affairs and journalism as a national security analyst. Again, “trust” is at the ore of communication with the public.


While serving in Iraq again in 2003 as an assistant division commander in the 1st Armored Division, his commanding general, Marty Dempsey, directed him to communicate with three distinct audiences in three very different ways. Above all, to do so with honesty and integrity, especially when communicating with the American people. Hertling received this directive: “Expand information operations, public affairs, and command information.”

“At the time, those three terms had distinct doctrinal meanings. Information operations referred to the full spectrum of activities designed to influence our enemies and protect our own decision-making. IO consisted of psychological operations, electronic warfare, deception, and information security. Public affairs was the communication of facts to the public, usually through the media, and it focused on telling the army's story truthfully and effectively. We were not allowed to use information operations against journalists. Finally, command information referred to internal communication within the force: that is, messaging that kept soldiers, families, and the army community informed so rumors didn't fill gaps.

Dempsey understood something few others did: In modern conflict, these three were interconnected. If we wanted to stabilize Iraq, we couldn't just fight insurgents; we had to protect information from the enemy, but we also had to win narratives, build trust, and tell the truth.”

Telling the truth is the foundation of building trust. And trust is, again, “earned in drops but lost in buckets.” The three pillars of communication may be interconnected, but they must be distinct to their audience. That’s why public affairs interaction to the public or internal communication with troops must never include lies or disinformation of “information operations,” strictly used against bonafide enemies. And the media are not "enemies of the people."


In 2026, we are right to demand leaders of good character who tell the truth and build trust.


[This is the second in a three-part series of reviews of this important book.]


*Former President George H.W. Bush departs the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) at Naval Station Norfolk, Va., Jan. 8, 2009.  (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Joel S. Kolodziejczak)


Tank photo: BAGHDAD, Iraq An M1 Abrams Tank from B Company 1st Battalion 37th Infantry, attached to 1st Battalion,, 36th Infantry, 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division as part of Task Force 1/36 maintains perimeter security inside a traffic circle in the Rusafa district of Baghdad, April 2004. (Cpl. Benjamin Cossel)

Thursday, August 13, 2026

Hertling’s Found Haiku, ‘Polished Diamonds’

Review by Bill Doughty––


Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling concludes his vital book “If I Don’t Return” with deep reflection and a hope that the advice he offer is received as intended: as a gift to help others.


Much of his advice is reflected in a prayer by General Douglas MacArthur, “Build Me a Son, O Lord.” 


Citing elements of the prayer, Hertling writes,

“Be strong enough to admit weakness. Be brave enough to face yourself. Hold you head up in honest defeat and lower it in victory. Be selfless, kind, and fair. Seek the truth and laugh often. Choose service over self. Draw out the myriad motivations that live in others. Polish diamonds –– gently, patiently, precisely –– until their brilliance helps others see. Our world needs all of that, from each of us.”

The following “found haiku” (unintended poetic prose revealed in 5-7-5 syllables) are polished diamonds quoted from Hertling’s book:


In his introduction:


In these pages, strength

In values. In character.

In purpose. In love


From a key section, “Make it Matter”:


Don’t delay. Don’t wait.

Don’t count the days. Instead, make

every day count


Regarding the value of the military family’s support back home (from a saying by Martha Summerhayes written in 1866):


I had cast my lot

with a soldier, and where he 

was, was home to me


On the importance of civilian communities’ expressions of appreciation and kindness to deployed service members:


We should all take that

lesson to heart. Make someone

feel better today


After appreciating the “permanence” of death and environmental destruction in the aftermath of combat:


The awareness that

long after war’s end, it is

the loss that endures


On the biggest “diamond” in his book –– finding and embracing humility:


Victory is a

terrible teacher if you

let it flatter you

Humility is a core value for Hertling, especially important for good leaders. “Take your job, but never yourself, seriously,” he advises.


In a very personal insight, Hertling discusses his Christian faith and how prayer helped him early in his life, especially when deployed to Desert Shield and in Desert Storm.


“Over time, my faith has become less about answers and more about the courage to ask better questions,” he writes. “To walk into uncertainty with conviction, not arrogance.”


Curiosity led him to explore other religious scriptures and beliefs.


“My faith now includes mystery –– and mystery requires humility.” [And THAT is a near found haiku.]


Hertling says, “It’s good to be humble enough to learn. To be bold enough to explore. And to be wise enough to know that culture isn’t about comparison. It’s about connections,” he writes. Hertling made lifelong connections wherever he was stationed, including in Germany (right).

Humility. Connections. Honor, Courage and Commitment…


It is impossible to read “If I Don’t Return” without thinking about current chaos in 2026: the War with Iran and suffering of Sailors aboard USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72).; the cruelty by ICE “shock troops” on American streets; ongoing efforts at election interference and other attacks on constitutional democracy; and corruption of the Justice Department, Department of Defense, and the greedy president and his family.


“Humility prevents power from becoming arrogance, wisdom from becoming pride, and strength from becoming cruelty,” Hertling writes. “Humility is not the absence of strength –– it is strength under control.”


Throughout this great book, Hertling not surprisingly quotes a lot of Lao Tzu and Clausewitz, philosophers who have long inspired military leaders. But he also works in some Mark Twain, Epictetus, and even Michael Jordan, Mike Tyson, and Yogi Berra.

And, a quote from an episode of the popular show Ted Lasso stands out.


Hertling writes,

“Lasso explains that people often judge too quickly because they think they know enough about someone or something. He mentions a quote he once saw on a wall: ‘Be curious, not judgmental.’ The rest of the episode doesn't matter, because that's the best advice for leaders. Curiosity keeps you learning. Curiosity keeps you humble. And curiosity keeps you open to the possibility that the next great lesson may come from the most unexpected source.”

This book is a must-read for any military leader, and in Hertling’s mind that means anyone in uniform. But it also written as a guide for anyone in business, medicine, sports, or other fields.


American hero and Hertling’s friend, retired Admiral William H. McRaven, agrees. His extended blurb reads:

“‘If I Don't Return’ is the story every soldier wants to tell but struggles to put into words. Deeply personal, incredibly moving, and storytelling at its finest! Mark Hertling has written a timeless tale of life as a soldier, a father, and a wartime leader, but this book is about more than combat— it is about how we face life's greatest challenges with faith, wisdom, and gratitude. Everyone who is searching will find something of value in this beautifully written narrative.”

McRaven is, of course, former commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, who under orders from Commander in Chief President Barack Obama found and killed Osama bin Laden.


Filled with polished diamonds of wisdom, “If I Don’t Return: A Father’s Wartime Journal” by Mark Hertling, Lieutenant General, U.S. Army (Retired) is published by Ballast Books, 2026.

Wednesday, July 29, 2026

Cannibalism at Sea: Right or Wrong?

Review by Bill Doughty––

Cannibalism is a grisly relic of the ancient past with a few notable modern exceptions. How could it possibly be relevant today?


Adam Cohen shows the relevance in his remarkable, insightful, and disgusting book, “The Captain’s Dinner: A Shipwreck, an Act of Cannibalism, and a Murder Trial that Changed Legal History” (Author’s Equity, 2025).


The book, dedicated “To all the cabin boys, both literal and otherwise,” opens with an introduction of the main characters and a bloody scene:

“On September 6, 1884, a German sailing ship pulled into the harbor in Falmouth, England, and deposited three emaciated men who had been to hell and back. Captain Thomas Dudley, first mate Edwin Stephens, and able seaman Edward Brooks had survived a shipwreck in the South Atlantic and drifted for weeks on the open sea in a flimsy wooden life-boat. They were eventually rescued, and now that they were safely home, they had a shocking story to tell.

In the lifeboat, the three men-and Richard Parker, their seventeen-year-old cabin boy-had no food or water. They were wasting away, their stomachs empty, their mouths parched, and their tongues turning black. In time, Dudley made a grim decision: They would kill the cabin boy so they could survive on his flesh and blood.

Dudley stabbed Parker to death while Stephens looked on, ready to help. Brooks, the conscientious objector of the group, opposed the killing and refused to participate. Once the deed was done, all three men eagerly drank the cabin boy's blood and feasted on his flesh. This grim food supply kept the three survivors alive for a few crucial days, until the German ship, which happened to be sailing by, stopped and took them on board.”

The three survivors thought they would be welcomed back in England with open arms.


After all, “the Custom of the Sea” allowed for shipwrecked sailors to draw lots and sacrifice one so the others could survive. But Captain Dudley (at right) with First Mate Stephens’s approval, murdered the young cabin boy without his consent and without drawing lots. They faced trial for murder.

Dudley was a devout Anglican who had taken the boy under his tutelage. With his prayer books, he had vowed to help Richard Parker become a good man on their ill-fated sail to from England to Australia. In his admission for the murder, Dudley told authorities, “I took out my knife first offering a prayer to God to forgive us for what we were about to do.”


Cohen presents a brief and relatable history of the Age of Sail. For example, something that will resonate with today’s Sailors: a “strong tradition of deference to captains.”

“Captains had what the law called ‘absolute discretion’ in many areas. Their dominion was inherent in the title ‘master’ commonly used for captains, which was short for the full legal title ‘master under God.’ It was widely accepted that captains were free to do what they wanted to their crews, almost without limit.”

The survivors had prayed for heavenly intervention in the three weeks since being shipwrecked. Brooks, the conscientious objector of the group, who nevertheless also drank Parker’s blood and feasted on his body, said they “all promised to live a better life” if God helped them be rescued.


Cohen also gives a stomach-turning history of cannibalism, as practiced in the ancient world and in extenuating survival circumstances –– and as sometimes justified, threatened, or practiced by religions and superstitions. He cites the Aztecs, Maori, and Fijians, and even the first English settlement in what would become the United States at Jamestown, Virginia, during the “Starving Time” of the winter of 1609-1610.


He quotes God’s supposed warning to the Israelites: “Then you shall eat the offspring of your own body, the flesh of your sons and of your daughters whom the Lord your God has given you.” Deuteronomy 28:53


Cohen notes, “Cannibalism also plays a central role in the Christian liturgy, which includes, in the Eucharist, the ritual consumption of the body and blood of Christ.”

After Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 crashed in the Andes, survivors ate the corpses of their fellow passengers. “A priest told the survivors that the Catholic Church did not regard it as a sin to engage, ‘in extremis,’ in cannibalism of dead bodies,” 


But, Cohen writes. “In a case of killing someone to eat, the ethical and legal considerations are more complex.”


It’s hard to believe that some cannibalism –– along with slavery –– was condoned and justified in the mid-1800s. The “Custom of the Sea” was widely accepted two centuries ago at a time when sailing was precarious and shipwrecks were not uncommon. Cohen includes stories of numerous life-and-death encounters at sea, including some involving American sailing ships, such as the whaler Essex, which inspired Melville's "Moby Dick."


But the Victorian Age was notable not only for its traditions, but also for its reformations. And the public was kept well-informed of reforms through newspapers, which also splashed stories like shipwrecks across front pages.


When Captain Dudley, first mate Stephens, and able Seaman Brooks faced court trials in England upon their return, England was undergoing progressive reforms of labor laws, sanitation and health practices, and greater equality –– away from castes and toward greater democracy.

Progressive reformers called for:

  • No more child prostitution
  • An end to children working as chimney sweeps
  • Free trade –– lowering food prices for the poor and working classes
  • Extending the right to vote, including calls for women’s suffrage
  • Support to labor unions
  • A turn away from violence
  • Dignity of everyone in society

Reformers confronted growing inequality in society as new technologies pushed some workers, including sailors, out of jobs. “New technologies increase profits for the ownership class, but they do not always help workers.”


“To Victorian reformers, in particular, cannibalism at sea represented a part of the old order that they were trying to revamp,” Cohen says. Even when sailors supposedly drew lots to carry out "the Custom of the Sea" it was often the youngest, darkest, or poorest sailor who somehow was sacrificed.


In the forms of reformation, traditionalists who feared change strongly supported Dudley and Stephens and said their actions were justified by a concept called “utilitarianism” –– necessity.


“An old Latin maxim, with origins in Christian canon law, holds that necessities legion non habit, or “necessity knows no law.’” Cohen notes, “The necessity defense has deep roots in Western law and philosophy.” We see the concept used today to justify immigration enforcement, war with Iran, and voting restrictions.


If a leader employs utilitarian tactics and says, “Trust me … I know what’s best for you,” Cohen suggests responding, “No, we do not trust you.”

Utilitarianism is “the philosophical theory that hold that the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number.” But does it justify murder? Authoritarian dictators such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Putin would argue “yes.”


To the Victorian courts the issue was not so much about cannibalism as a utilitarian necessity as it was about the “sin” of taking cabin boy Richard Parker’s life. Parker’s last words, looking up at his captain were “What, me, Sir?”


Progressive reformers in England saw the issue with “moral clarity.” The answer was to follow the law, not subvert the law.  “To slay an innocent and unoffending person to save one’s own life is not a justification or excuse.”


It doesn’t matter that the offender thinks they have God’s permission or forgiveness.


Followers of Jesus believe he sacrificed himself for the salvation of others. Killing the cabin boy (and eat his flesh) in order to save themselves was an “inversion of the concept of self-sacrifice.” Claiming to have God on their side, some said, was "blasphemous."


Supporters and family members of cabin boy Richard Parker placed a memorial “mural tablet” at the graves of the boy’s foster parents. An inscription reads, in part, “Though he slay me, yet I will trust in him. –– Job XIII 15.”


It reads as a poetic indictment of sorts against Captain Dudley.


Here are two “found haiku” discovered in this book, one from the first chapter and one from the final words in the book:


proximity to

mortality had always

been part of sailing


stare out into the

fog undisturbed, searching for

A mast and a sail


Readers of this book or those who study the case of “Queen v. Dudley and Stephens” can learn the surprising verdicts and aftermath, especially relating to Dudley and how he met his fate.


Cohen’s book is at times shocking with grim tales of cannibalism. Notably, he refers to philosophers, authors, and literary works such as Stephen Crane’s “The Open Boat,” Edgar Allan Poe’s “Narration of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket,” Rudyard Kipling’s "The White Man's Burden: The United States and the Philippine Islands,” Daniel DeFoe’s “Robinson Crusoe,” Yann Martel’s “Life of Pi,” original Grimm tales, and Charles Dickens’s “A Christmas Carol.”


These writers, with the exception of Martel, who endorses Cohen's book, are long-dead. But they are also relevant today in confronting growing authoritarianism and the need for true “moral clarity.”



In Dickens’s story the ghost Marley tells wealth-and-power-consumed Scrooge, “Mankind was my business; the common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance and benevolence were, all, my business.”