Teaching

Over more than two decades in national security, a pattern recurred: highly trained practitioners who knew precisely what to do but could not explain why they were doing it. In well-defined situations, they performed effectively. When circumstances shifted — when the adversary adapted, when the rules of engagement became ambiguous, when the mission evolved faster than the training — many struggled. They had been equipped with procedures but not with principles. They had been trained for the known and were unprepared for the unknown.

My central conviction as an educator is that understanding must precede procedure. Before a student can meaningfully engage with what to do or how to do it, they must first understand why it matters — the strategic logic, the historical context, the ethical stakes, and the human consequences at play. When students understand the why, the what and how become intuitive rather than mechanical. When the situation is not clearly defined — as it rarely is in real-world security environments — a student who understands foundational principles can reason through ambiguity. A student who only knows procedures cannot.

I measure the success of my teaching not by whether students have mastered a body of content, but by whether they have developed the capacity to think clearly under uncertainty, evaluate evidence critically, communicate their reasoning with precision, and act with professional and ethical judgment when the situation does not fit the template. These are qualities that cannot be transmitted through lecture alone. They are cultivated through dialogue, through challenge, through the sustained experience of being asked — week after week — not only what you think, but why.