The Journal He Never Meant To Publish (w/ Mark Hertling) | Mona Charen Show

General Mark Hertling started a journal during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, anticipating a 50% casualty rate. His primary motivation was to leave behind a record of life lessons for his two young sons, aged 8 and 10, in case he did not survive. This personal artifact, filled with daily musings and combat experiences, was later discovered and typed up by his youngest son, leading to its eventual publication as a book. The process of revisiting these entries provided Hertling with catharsis and an opportunity to analyze his life's successes and failures.

Hertling states he had a 'coin flip chance of not coming back' and started the journal to prepare his sons. His youngest son later found and typed it up, giving it to him in 2024 (likely a verbal slip, meant 2021 or 2022 given the book was published in March of 'this year' (2024)). He describes it as an 'emotional challenge' and a 'phenomenal gift'.

Hertling recounts a specific incident where he killed an Iraqi soldier at close range after a ceasefire. The soldier's helmet, containing a picture of his family, rolled towards him, creating a lasting 'moral injury.' This experience highlights the profound psychological toll of direct, personal killing, contrasting it with long-distance engagements where the implications are less visible. He notes that modern warfare, with its close-quarters fighting, subjects more soldiers to this type of trauma.

Hertling describes shooting an Iraqi soldier three times at 'very close range' and seeing a picture of the soldier's family in his helmet. He explicitly states this 'created your term and my term in the book, moral injury.' He contrasts this with long-distance strikes where 'we never saw the implications.'

The military's culture and oaths differentiate between officers and enlisted personnel regarding orders. While enlisted soldiers are expected to obey lawful orders, both officers and enlisted are explicitly taught to question and disobey illegal orders. This principle, though challenging in combat, is a fundamental aspect of military training, ensuring adherence to justice and the laws of war. Officers, in particular, swear an oath that requires them to evaluate orders for legality.

Hertling explains the difference in oaths: enlisted obey 'according to regulation and the Uniform Code of Military Justice,' while officers 'well and faithfully execute the duties.' He states, 'if you're given an illegal order, you must question it. And if you determine it's illegal, you must disobey it.' He cites 'The Black Hearts' story as an example of an illegal order.

Hertling strongly advocates for diversity, both within the military and the nation, as a source of strength. He argues that diverse organizations, bringing together people from all backgrounds and with different ideas, lead to better outcomes and stronger teams. This perspective directly counters views that criticize military diversity initiatives, emphasizing that unity is built through teamwork among diverse individuals, not homogeneity.

Hertling states, 'the diversity makes us stronger. There's research about that. I teach an MBA class, and I can cite research that says diversity makes organizations stronger.' He highlights that soldiers 'from all 50 states and all of our territories' form unit teams.

Reflecting on the 'easy victory' of the first Gulf War, Hertling cautions against national hubris and the belief that military force can solve all problems. He emphasizes that a truly great nation must remain humble and utilize all instruments of national power, not just the military. He notes that Saddam Hussein, despite his defeat, propagated a narrative of victory, underscoring the importance of a truthful and humble self-assessment for national progress.

Hertling describes the 'swagger' after Desert Storm and seeing Saddam's palaces filled with murals declaring his 'victory over the United States.' He concludes, 'in order to be a great nation... you've got to remain humble' and use 'instruments of national power not just the military.'