Statement of Purpose

Roger G. Herbert, Jr.

A major theme integrating the diverse experiences of my career as a Navy SEAL officer is that
the foundational ideas of the humanities and social sciences bear directly, and with vast
consequence, on every aspect of human endeavor. As a junior officer experiencing combat for the
first time, balancing fear, fatigue and confusion against an intense desire to emerge ethically whole, I
discovered both the vital significance and inherent limitations of our theoretical framework for
ethical decision making in modern warfare. As a senior officer shepherding national security
policies through the Pentagon, I witnessed political and military leaders struggling to reconcile
normative considerations with the practical enterprise of statecraft as they debated the decision to
commit the nation to war. Emerging from these and countless other experiences is the simple
premise that these ideas have real consequence in the real world. Their influences on political
outcomes may be creative or destructive, but they are never entirely academic.
While my duties have frequently situated me at the confluence of practical and theoretical
matters, my primary focus has been in the realm of action, not ideas. My purpose in seeking to
continue my education is to shift that focus. My ambition is to contribute, through teaching,
research and consultation, to the scholarly dialogue at the core of political action. International
organizations, policy think tanks, federal agencies, non-profits and non-governmental organizations
offer appealing professional avenues for realizing these objectives. Teaching at the university level,
however, is my principal goal.
Most influential in my decision to pursue this goal was my extraordinarily satisfying tenure as
Commanding Officer of the Naval Special Warfare Center, the “schoolhouse” for Navy SEALs.
Inspiring young men and women to achieve great things is always among a naval officer’s primary
responsibilities. During this assignment it was my core task, and I promptly discovered how
satisfying this task could be. Surrounded by a cadre of unprecedented talent, we seized the
opportunity to initiate profound curricula changes. While maintaining the physical intensity
typically associated with SEAL training, we introduced our students to Platonic metaphysics,
Aristotelian virtue ethics, Stoic conceptions of freedom, the psychology of traumatic stress, just war
doctrine, history, literature and other subjects that are vitally relevant on the modern battlefield, yet
too often overlooked. My instructors and staff instituted these changes with such care and
originality, and my students embraced them with such energy, that the results radically exceeded
expectations. Although research is a central part of my academic ambition, I flourished in the

1
 Statement of Purpose
Roger G. Herbert, Jr.

intensely creative educational environment of the Naval Special Warfare Center and I hope to return
to it in a college classroom.
Although circumstances have deferred its achievement, the goal of continuing my education is
not new. More than a decade ago, I set September 2004 as the target date for starting my doctoral
studies. The events of September 2001, however, and the strategic decisions that followed,
interrupted these plans. As an experienced SEAL Officer, I could not ethically retire from active
duty during this critical period. But the threat has since evolved. Although young men and women
continue to make sacrifices in dangerous places, this generational effort to address the violent
extremist threat has entered a phase that several of our political and military leaders have aptly
characterized as “the new normal.” After much consideration and consultation with senior officers
in my community, I am satisfied that this is the appropriate time to transition the nature of my
contribution from military service to academic service.
My intellectual interests are eclectic. Although my intended areas of concentration are
Political Theory and International Relations, my research interests include the history of American
political thought, moral philosophy, national security and public diplomacy. I hope to examine,
through the theoretical lens of these and other disciplines, issues related to the causes of war, conflict
prevention and conflict resolution. The cultural, philosophical and historical context in which
Western liberalism has emerged presents several lines of inquiry that I also hope to pursue. I am
interested in examining the manner in which the philosophical foundations of liberalism have
unfolded over time and under the diverse influences of classical thought, scientific discovery,
theological discourse, philosophical inquiry, artistic influence, political ferment, economic upheaval
and war. The complexity of these influences, and their counter-influences, speaks both to the
promise of liberalism as a force of stability and justice, and the problematic nature of universalizing
its tenets. As strategists and pundits increasingly endorse democratization as a means of achieving
strategic ends, it is imperative to clarify the inherent impediments, if indeed these exist, to importing
liberal institutions into societies without liberal traditions. The moral, political and strategic
implications are significant.
Like most special operations officers, I have encountered difficult moral choices. The ethical
dimension of international security, therefore, holds intense personal interest. While the framework
for making ethical judgments in war has remained largely static, strategic context is dynamic and
frequently stresses that theoretical construct. I examine an aspect of this tension between ethical

2
 Statement of Purpose
Roger G. Herbert, Jr.

doctrine and the changing nature of warfare in my 1992 Naval Postgraduate School thesis, Bullets
with Names. The thesis responds to an argument that many in government and in the media were
making in the wake of the first Gulf War: if a threat to global security assumes a personal character,
as some contended was the case with the Iraqi regime, then the counter to that threat is justified, in
the name of expedience, utility and indeed humanity, to do the same. Bullets with Names analyzes
the debate to amend or rescind the 1976 “assassination ban,” and concludes that employing
instruments that explicitly contradict, or appear to contradict, liberal values will ultimately
compromise America’s moral authority, corrode domestic consensus and forfeit over the long term
any short-term advantages that these instruments may confer. Although I do not intend to reengage
this specific issue, the political and ethical arguments framing this dialogue have broad application.
Each security emergency in which military imperatives contend with just war considerations or
liberal democratic traditions presents new demands for ethical scrutiny and new opportunities to
contribute to the theoretical mass.
Professional experience with the informational element of national power also shapes my
academic interests and provides ample material for scholarly work. Assigned to the Joint Staff’s
Directorate for Information Operations, I played a bit role in the arguably ineffective effort to
influence world opinion during the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Despite the tireless efforts
of some of the most intelligent, creative and honorable people with whom I have ever served, we
consistently lost ground to criminals and agents of intolerance. The healthy distrust of overweening
governmental authority that is essential to the American character, I observed, also renders the
United States relatively disadvantaged in leveraging information to achieve strategic objectives.
Immediately following my Joint Staff assignment, I had the opportunity to reflect on this observation
in an academic setting at the National War College. The resulting seminar paper, which I have
enclosed as my writing sample, charts the rise and fall of the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic
Influence and describes the chilling effect that its bureaucratic demise had on strategic
communication policymaking. Considered as a case study, this narrative raises larger questions
about bureaucratic politics, the role of the media and even national character. I would enjoy
addressing these questions with the benefit of a broader theoretical foundation.
Berkeley’s Political Science Department is ideally suited to my academic and professional
goals. The Department is exceptionally well endowed with scholars who have published, or are
conducting research, on issues of national security, the normative aspects of Political Theory and

3
 Statement of Purpose
Roger G. Herbert, Jr.

other areas of interest I outline above. It would be a privilege to work with your faculty and, when
appropriate, serve as a resource to faculty and students on military matters. Since it is likely that my
work will require interdisciplinary research, the highly regarded ethics program in Berkeley’s
Philosophy Department is another significant consideration. Also contributing to my enthusiasm for
your program is a humble confidence in my ability to make unique and meaningful contributions to
the University, the Department and the academic experience of my colleagues. Like your other
applicants, I have demonstrated a capacity for quality scholarship, graduating with distinction from
two Master’s programs. Unlike your other applicants, I enjoy a professional history that is both
uncommon and relevant. My unconventional military service has exposed me to the highest levels
of government and the lowest circumstances of human existence. I would draw on these experiences
liberally. The insights they provide would necessarily pervade every project and seminar.
During each of my three command tours, I instituted a formal program of professional reading
for my junior officers. Some embraced my program enthusiastically; most complied dutifully,
though reluctantly. Attempting to appeal to the latter population, I regularly shared with them my
sincere belief that the liberal education I was privileged to receive was essential to my success as a
naval officer. Education in the humanities and social sciences, I argued, provides military leaders
with intellectual resources to make connections and perceive interdependence where others, who
have not so benefited, tend to view objects and events in isolation. As I transition to the next phase
of my professional life, I proceed with a sense that there may also be wisdom in the corollary to this
argument. Just as a liberal education is so valuable to a military leader, I hope to demonstrate that a
military education, particularly the practical aspects of that education acquired through years of
implementing theory-driven policies while negotiating the complexities of the human terrain, may
confer similar benefit to an aspiring scholar.