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

This episode is a book-club style interview centered on General Mark Hertling’s journal-turned-book about Desert Storm and what the experience taught him about war, parenting, and moral responsibility. Hertling explains that he wrote the original journal in 1990–91 because he believed there was a real chance he would not return from combat. He was a young major in the 1st Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 1st Armored Division, and says he was told to expect extremely heavy casualties before deploying. The journal sat in a footlocker for decades until his son recovered, typed, and gifted it back to him, prompting Hertling to publish it as a book. …

1. Desert Storm looked easy in hindsight, but Hertling says it felt uncertain and potentially catastrophic before deployment.
2. The book is really about moral injury, fatherhood, and how war changes people, not just about combat.
3. Hertling argues that killing at close range leaves a deeper psychological imprint than long-distance warfare.
4. He strongly distinguishes lawful military service from blind obedience and says unlawful orders must be resisted.
5. He thinks current leaders overstate what military power can accomplish and understate the need for humility and other tools of national power.
6. He sees diversity, cultural literacy, and broad curiosity as core military leadership traits.
7. He wants the U.S. to use the 250th anniversary as a reset toward better civic character, not just patriotic swagger.

• Hertling’s claim that today’s military transformation is mostly due to training/doctrine and not politics is asserted strongly but not evidenced in detail.
• His confidence that the military culture is too ingrained to be fundamentally changed may understate the effect of sustained personnel purges or politicization.
• The interview treats Admiral Holsey’s motives as likely principled retirement, but that remains interpretive rather than established fact.
• Charen and Hertling differ somewhat on historical framing: she emphasizes continued progress toward ideals, while he emphasizes national backsliding and the need for renewal.
• The exchange about whether soldiers fight for ideas or only for buddies remains somewhat oversimplified; both lean toward a combined explanation but do not fully resolve the tension.