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)

Race, U.S. Military & Insurrection Act

Review by Bill Doughty

The history of the United States Insurrection Act is mirrored in black and white.

Congress created the Act to deal with threat of slave rebellions. Then, President Ulysses S. Grant used the act to quell the KKK and other attacks on freed blacks during Reconstruction. 

In 1856 President Franklin Pierce used the Insurrection Act to disperse lawbreakers in Kansas at the request of territorial governor Andrew Reeder. Violent agitators from Missouri crossed state lines to intimidate Kansas residents into voting for slavery to be authorized within the state, afraid they would lose their “property” to a neighbor free state.

LBJ called up the Act to defend black Americans during the civil rights movement against white supremacists and segregationists. A generation later, George H. W. Bush invoked the Act when some African Americans protested and rioted in the wake of the police beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles in 1992.

Yet, the Insurrection Act was not invoked against white anti-democratic rioters during an actual insurrection attempt at the very heart of government.

As lawyer and author Hawa Allan shows in “Insurrection: rebellion, civil rights, and the paradoxical state of Black citizenship” (W.W. Norton, 2022) President Trump chose to not call for invocation of the Act on January 6, 2021 when his supporters attacked the Capitol in an attempted coup.

Instead of naming J6 rioters “insurrectionists,” including those who violently attacked police and security officers, Trump pardoned, praised as patriots, and even paid some of them with taxpayer money. 

Allen writes, “after a mostly white mob stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and threatened to disrupt the Electoral College certification of the presidential election, beating a Capitol Police officer in its midst, some Republican spokesmen were loath to call its participants 'insurrectionists.' Donald Trump himself characterized the Capitol rioters as posing 'zero threat, right from the start,' and went on to state that 'some of them went in, and they are hugging and kissing the police and the guards,' and that they were waved in and out of the Capitol by said police.”

“So, what's in a name? An ‘insurrectionist,’ by definition, is someone who has engaged in an act or instance of revolting against a civil authority or an established government. However, many of those participating in the riots on that fateful January 6 considered themselves to be ‘patriots,’ by definition vigorously supporting their country and prepared to defend it against enemies and detractors. Among such rioters, as indicated by the subsequent indictments, were members of the Oath Keepers; some of them reportedly directed fellow Capitol infiltrators toward the Senate wing in order to stop the certification of the presidential election.”

Allen explains:

“It's true that the Insurrection Act does not need to be invoked by the president in order to authorize federal military intervention in the District of Columbia, which lacks statehood. However, as commander in chief of the D.C. National Guard, the president and his administration could have directed that this be done once riots were sparked at the Capitol. Although local commanders of the National Guard are invested with the limited authority to take immediate military action in certain emergency situations where there is not sufficient time to obtain the requisite approvals, in the case of the ‘Stop the Steal’ rally the Pentagon had restricted the authority of the D.C. National Guard commander before the riot, requiring higher-level sign-off in order to take such immediate action.”

Deviating Military Power

Race was again in the forefront when President Trump wanted to use the Insurrection Act during his first term, even asking then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Milley and Defense Secretary Esper to consider having the military fire upon protesters.

“Trump's threatened invocation of the Insurrection Act during the George Floyd protests incited an uproar among numerous commentators who decried the federal government's use of military power against its ‘own people.’ The use of federal troops as a civilian police force, according to many commentators at the time, is an unwarranted trespass on the rights and freedoms of American citizens and contravenes the values upon which the United States was founded.”

Trump continues to threaten to call up the Insurrection Act and activate the military against U.S. civilians who oppose him and protest against his policies. In 2025 he has deployed armed forces in American cities as he moves closer to what historians warn would authoritarian rule, away from states’ rights federalism and toward autocracy.

This week U.S. senators and representatives implored the military: “Don’t give up the ship” and to follow their oath to the Constitution in upholding the rule of law. They called for military service members to follow only legal orders, not illegal ones. In a social media post, Trump texted “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” He also re-posted comments calling for the veterans to be punished with death, including hanging. Later he attempted to downplay his actions.

Senator Mark Kelly, Navy Captain (ret.)

It is said to be the first time, at least in modern times, that a president explicitly incited violence against members of Congress. In the days following Trump’s text, veterans such as Senator Mark Kelly announced they have received death threats from Trump supporters.

Trump’s words against the senators and representatives recalled explicit and implicit threats to deploy the military against the president’s opponents and U.S. citizens in general, including as conceived in the “Navy SEAL Team 6 assassination theory” presented in the Supreme Court ––as well as via the Insurrection Act.

“It is true that the military power set forth in the Insurrection Act is an extraordinary exception from the normal state of federal affairs,” Allen writes.

“The power, among other things, upends the conventions of federalism, in line with which domestic deployments of the ‘militia' — or the modern-day National Guard –– are authorized by the state governor. This power also represents a significant departure from the constitutional aversion to standing armies, which some framers feared would result in the arbitrary use of force against civilians and thereby re-create the same sort of authoritarian menace, in the form of the British Army, that American revolutionaries had just sought to free themselves from. The Insurrection Act, then, is both an exception and a rule—it represents a radical deviation from the principles of federalism and aversion to using military forces to police civilians, while authorizing a purportedly necessary use of federal military power to restore ‘law and order’ amid a domestic crisis.”

Words in a Mirror

Allen contends that the term “insurrection” is ill-defined, leaving the power of interpretation to the president, who may see protests and crises through a racial lens or “mirror.”

“An insurrection, under the Act, is a definitional vacuum waiting to be filled by the executive. The incidents taken to warrant domestic federal military intervention betray just as much, if not more, about the predilections of those wielding power as they do about the threatening nature of such events. From Nat Turner's rebellion to violent clashes over slavery in ‘Bleeding Kansas’ to white paramilitary resistance during Radical Reconstruction to the desegregation of public schools in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi to the Los Angeles ‘riots’ in 1992, the events across history that have been interpreted to warrant the domestic deployment of federal troops under the Insurrection Act reveal a pattern: the prevailing invocation of the Act, on the one hand, to suppress revolts against the slave system and so-called race riots, and, on the other, to enforce the civil rights of African Americans. So, although what constitutes an insurrection is technically undefined in the text of the Act itself, the term has been defined in practice through its historical application. What has been interpreted to constitute an insurrection is a mirror reflecting the ongoing and often bloody battle to fully incorporate black Americans into the citizenry of the United States —a struggle that, in this light, appears more like an open-ended civil war than a history of ‘progress.’”

Again, race plays a role in how and when the Act is invoked –– and by who is in office.

“An ‘insurrection,’ however, is also defined by omission. Where the Trump administration, for example, threatened to invoke the Act in response to nationwide demonstrations against police brutality, the same inclination was nonexistent in response to, say, deadly protests in Charlottesville, North Carolina, by white nationalists, or to the storming of the Michigan state capitol by armed mostly white men protesting ongoing COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns. Although the Insurrection Act does not need to be invoked for the president to deploy the D.C.

National Guard or federal troops within the District of Columbia, the absence of any military presence during the riots –– or, as commentators called it, the ‘insurrection’ —at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was certainly glaring. As commander in chief of the D.C. National Guard, it is clear that Trump and his administration could have authorized its deployment-that is, if they actually interpreted the riot to be a threat to law and order.”

R.E. Lee monument

Allen notes the “scant use of force” used by police in incidents brought on by armed and mostly white demonstrators not only on J6, but also in Lansing, MI and Charlottesville, VA, compared with excessive use of force against unarmed protesters who are not white.

“One obvious parallel involves the 2017 rally held in Charlottesville, Virginia, to oppose the proposed removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, which drew counterprotesters who gathered to oppose the many white nationalists and neo-Nazis parading on that day. Refusing to denounce the white nationalist contingent at the rally, Trump remarked that there were "very fine people on both sides." Of course, it was at this rally that a white nationalist drove his car into a group of counterprotesters, killing a young activist named Heather Heyer. The violent nature of the rally attendees, however, was not limited to this deadly attack.”

The mirror of unequal treatment via the Insurrection Act shines a light on other signs of growing white supremacy in and out of the military: renaming bases after actual seditionists of the Confederacy, reinstalling monuments to Confederates, downplaying the history of slavery, and removing blacks and women from top leadership positions in the military. These are just some of the obvious examples.

Three Navy-blue Green Presidents

Review by Bill Doughty––

Six United States presidents in my lifetime were Navy veterans: John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush. Each in his own way and to varying degrees was an optimistic champion of the environment.

Efforts of the first three –– JFK, LBJ and RMN –– led to the first Earth Day in 1970, now Earth Month in April.

The environmental movement is sometimes overshadowed by the other tectonic shifts during that era: The Cold War, Civil Rights, and the Vietnam War. But Douglas Brinkley takes the history of the green movement out of the shadows by centering on the three presidents of the era, as well as highlighting the life and work of ecologist-writer Rachel Carson, in “Silent Spring Revolution: John F. Kennedy, Rachel Carson, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and the Great Environmental Awakening” (HarperCollins, 2022).

Sailor JFK

The Navy had a large part in shaping the vision of the presidents who defended pristine wilderness, clean air and water, and preservation of the environment.

For Kennedy of Massachusetts, it began with a deep love of the sea and shoreline, according to Brinkley, who opens the book with this:

“Beguiled by the way sea and sky played together, almost always unpredictably, John F. Kennedy was enthralled by the complexity of the Atlantic Ocean: the moody sky, the invisible might of the tides, shifting clouds, and the yaw and pitch of movement. To be on the water in a sailboat, even in a cruel wind, provided him with a profound connection with nature.”

Kennedy saw, in his own words, the human “biological fact that all of us have, in our veins, the same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean, and, therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears. We are tied to the ocean,” he said.

Johnson of Texas, was saddled with fighting the Vietnam War, poverty, segregation, and voter suppression. Environmentalism took somewhat of a back seat to other priorities. Brinkley writes:

“On the conservation front, Johnson probably should have been aware of of the importance of intelligent land stewardship. His favorite novel –– John Steinbeck’s ‘The Grapes of Wrath’ (1939) –– was based on a man-made ecological catastrophe during the Great Depression that destroyed ranches and farms in Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. It was soil depletion that led to the Dust Bowl. Johnson, however, was left wanting to help the rural poor, without setting an equal priority on nurturing the natural world around them. Johnson liked Bureau of Reclamation dams, because he knew first-hand how electricity lit up forgotten regions, literally and figuratively.”

LBJ’s penchant for dam-building, both at home and abroad, as well as his escalation of the Vietnam war, caused consternation for environmentalists.

LBJ

Yet, in 1968, Johnson signed the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. “Rivers, Johnson believed, from the far-flung waterways of Alaska, Idaho, and Wyoming to those coursing through the rural countryside of Vermont and Maine were the lifeblood of America,” Brinkley observes.

Johnson “forged ahead on conservation legislation to protect wild places because it was part of America’s frontier heritage.” LBJ is responsible for bringing about the Wilderness Act, Highway Beautification Act, and a commitment to “a green legacy for tomorrow.” According to Brinkley, Johnson should be given more credit for his advocacy to conservation, particularly of America’s rivers (just as President Eisenhower is recognized for the national highway system). As regards LBJ, “His Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was a visionary law passed purely on behalf of the aesthetics of rivers.”

Nixon of California, was captivated by the Pacific Ocean, as a child in Orange County. In 1969 he would make his home, as Kennedy did, next to the ocean. In Nixon’s case, it was in San Clemente, where he enjoyed whale watching. Though facing his own corruption issues that would eventually lead to his expulsion from office, Nixon still managed to achieve positive global initiatives such as rapprochement with China and arms control talks with Russia. And he not only supported the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and National Environmental Policy Act, but he also created the Environmental Protection Agency.

“If Nixon’s signing of NEPA and his Everglades protection were the first big time indications of the administration’s serious commitment to environmental protection, the State of the Union address on January 22, with its plea that ‘Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions,’ was seen by surprised Democrats as the Great Reconfirmation that Nixon indeed harbored a genuine TR streak … When Nixon delivered a Special Message to the Congress on Environmental Quality on February 10 (1970), he listed fourteen executive orders and twenty-three legislative proposals to combat pollution and provide parkland. ‘The time has come when we can wait no longer to repair the damage already done,’ he told Congress.”

Brinkley notes several times that Nixon was “suspicious” of liberal traps, so he did not appear on TV for the first Earth Day. He even asked FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, to spy on high-profile Earth Day events on college campuses, fearful of their ties with the anti-Vietnam War movement.

Yet, Nixon’s support of conservation, preservation, and a clean environment persisted.

Nixon

In 1970 he created the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, and he signed the Clean Air Act.

On October 21, 1972, Nixon signed the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972, an achievement to the legacy of Rachel Carson. He signed the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

And he signed the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act (limiting nationwide speed limits to 55) and the Federal Energy Administration Act in 1974 (the same year he was forced to resign because of Watergate).

Brinkley briefly shows how the Navy stopped pumping sewage into San Francisco Bay while in port. He also discusses how, during the Nixon administration, Marines at Camp Pendleton helped protect endangered wildlife. In coordination with the Department of Interior and NASA, the Navy sponsored the first all-women team of aquanauts in Tektite II to study the ecosystem at the bottom of the sea.

All three Navy-veteran presidents –– two Democrats and one Republican –– were following the lead of conservationist Republican President Theodore Roosevelt of another generation, and who had his own strong ties to the Navy and who championed nature and national parks. 

In two appendices Brinkley lists scores of national wildlife refuges and national parks created or authorized by Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon.

One of President Nixon’s many environmental preservation initiatives included establishing a federally designated Wilderness area, the Cumberland Island National Seashore. “Because Cumberland National Seashore encompassed twenty-three different ecological communities, Nixon agreed that only three hundred tourists at a time be allowed on Cumberland Island. Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter, a moderate Democrat, played a major conservation role regarding the saving of Cumberland…"

Rachel Carson talks about "Silent Spring" in April 1963

This massive book (857 pages!) includes dozens of evocative photos, memorable stories, and captivating personalities of the people who created the environmental enlightenment and “awakening” in the 1950s, 60s, and early 70s.

Rachel Carson provided much of the inspiration for the environmental movement leading up to the first Earth Day and the public’s demand for clean water, air, and land. She wisely connected the long-lasting danger of atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons with the hazards related to DDT, a pernicious pesticide that altered ecosystems. We have referenced or featured Carson’s works several times here on Navy Reads.

Carson’s “Silent Spring” and her Sea Trilogy inspired John F. Kennedy. Family matriarch Rose Kennedy gave a copy of “Under the Sea-Wind,” published in 1941, to JFK in the mid-1950s.

“Although ‘Under the Sea-Wind’ sold in low numbers, perhaps because Pearl Harbor occurred right after it debuted, it became celebrated by marine biologists and other lovers of the animal kingdom,” Brinkley writes.

Carson was, in turn, inspired by Albert Schweitzer. And it seems everyone was inspired by Henry David Thoreau. 

Brinkley also follows the influence and positive impact of artists, writers, scientists, and politicians: Ansel Adams, John Muir, Carl Sandburg, Marjorie Stoneman Douglas, William O. Douglas, Linus Pauling, Harold Ickes, Wallace Stegner, Robert Frost, Ted Sorensen, Robert F. Kennedy, Cesar Chavez, Jacques Cousteau, Sylvia Earle, Barry Commoner, David Brower, Lady Bird Johnson, Howard Zahniser, Ralph Nader, Robert Boyle, John Saylor, Katherine Ordway, Chief Luther Standing Bear, Laurance Rockefeller, Russell Train, Stewart Udall, Ronald Dellums, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Frank Church, Philip Hart, Gaylord Nelson, Edmund Muskie, William Ruckelshaus, Walter Hickel, Al Gore, and John Ehrlichman.

In the book’s preface, Brinkley praises those “serving a cause bigger than oneself” and warns against the ostrich syndrome of ignoring ongoing threats to the environment, including climate chaos. 

He writes: “The poisonous climate cocktail of ravaging wildfires, mega floods, and monstrous blizzards costs American taxpayers billions of dollars every year (soon to climb to trillions), disrupts lives, causes vast displacement, ruins communities, and kills countless citizens.”

Brinkley says, “In some small way, I hope this book illuminates how an engaged citizenry can bring America’s natural beauty back from the brink.” He writes, “Optimism must remain in our oxygen.”

I remember the feeling of optimism, hope, and activism of the first Earth Day in 1970, the first recognition that something needed to be done to confront pollution, overpopulation, and other ecological threats.

Among more than a dozen books, Brinkley is the author of “The Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America” (2009) and “The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter’s Journey Beyond the White House” (1998).