1) What is your degree and your dissertation title?

Ph.D., political science, 2003. “Diversionary Temptations: U.S. Presidents and the Political Use of Force”

2) What is your current position/title?

Associate Professor of National Security Affairs, U.S. Naval War College, in Newport RI.

3) As is often the case for SSP alums, when you finished your dissertation you had an important choice to make between a position in the policy world and an academic career. What inclined you toward the option you chose? Do you have any advice to share with current SSP students as they weigh their career choices?

I've been fortunate to have a foot in both worlds with faculty positions in "professional military education" (PME), that is Defense Department institutions like the Naval War College. My job is mostly academic, but we teach policy-oriented courses and have opportunities to interact with policymakers and participate in policy-relevant research projects.

I knew enough about the war colleges to be interested in them when I finished at MIT, but I applied broadly for academic jobs, particularly at teaching-oriented institutions. Most jobs I'd held before graduate school were in science education, I loved my undergraduate experience at Pomona College, I really enjoyed being a TA at MIT. I was definitely willing to think about policy jobs, though, having had rewarding internships and knowing I was interested in practical applications more than scholarly paradigm debates.

My first advice to students is get to know SSP's military fellows since you never know where they will be later -- the colonel who hired me into my faculty position for the Army was a former SSP fellow. More seriously, graduate students may undervalue things like location or salary in deciding what really makes sense for them. I think of small schools in isolated locations I applied to, and wonder if work alone would have kept me happy. Finishing at MIT I turned down a tenure track offer that would have been very poor quality of life, despite having nothing else in hand and knowing it might be my only shot (I was not a job market "star"). Later I hit the jackpot with Newport, but I that was the right call.

4) Would you say that your experience at SSP has continued to influence your current position? What key concepts or values from SSP have served you well in your current position?
 
I remarked on Twitter recently that I discussed the trafficability of the Pripyat Marshes in class with Barry Posen, and that probably wasn't typical of political science programs. SSP offers a unique depth in military operations, organizations, and technology, and for my career path in professional military education it was excellent preparation.

A related value is SSP's openness to interdisciplinary analysis. While mostly a political science / IR program, SSP recognizes that security often requires understanding relevant science and technology, economics, military operations, and history. As a war college faculty member, I'm not trying to teach military officers to be political scientists. My goal is to help them make better strategic decisions and to function effectively in the U.S. political-bureaucratic system.

Lastly, a core SSP belief is that civilians are needed in national security policy not just to set broad political direction -- "go to war with country X" -- but to provide oversight, advice, and ideas for the military. I live that daily at the war college, occasionally in front of skeptical students or faculty. I've actually described SSP to officers who've asked "where do those DOD civilians come from?", not least current Deputy SECDEF and SSP alum Kathleen Hicks.

5) One of the primary premises of the MIT SSP is “War is an extension of politics. Politics causes wars. Policy must be the governing force.” Can you explain how, in your experience, this has been true or false? What has been your own experience?

Every war college on the planet reveres Clausewitz, my own institution included, so I had better say "true"! I mean it when I agree, however. It may be cliche, but recent American failures when using military force have been fundamentally political failures -- including the decisions to get into unwinnable situations -- more than poor battlefield performance.

6) What is the part of your current position that you think allows you the most satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction and why?

Teaching military officers has been very rewarding. Our officers are 10 to 20 years into their careers and so arrive with tremendous practical experience. Most have STEM or business degrees, though, and have focused on mastering tactical or technical roles. International relations as a field of study is often entirely new. They haven't needed to connect military decisions to national policy, nor think of operations in terms of political cause-effect relationships.

The flip side of having professional students is that I do not teach any undergraduates, and I do miss talking to young adults who haven't made all their big decisions yet. And who could simply be quirky -- I recall an MIT undergraduate bringing her pet gecko to class. Mid-career U.S. military officers are more diverse in some ways than you might expect, but "quirky" is not one of them.

One important part of being a scholar is academic freedom -- which despite being a Defense Department institution, the Naval War College is good at respecting. Newsweek ran a story about a Twitter thread of mine in 2019, headlined, "Navy Professor Calls President Dangerous and Irresponsible"; I still have my job. I appreciated SSP's independent and critical streak and the ability to teach, write, and say what in my job is a tremendous benefit. I also think it's valuable to model respectful policy disagreement for our American and foreign officers.

7) What in your career are you most proud of and has SSP been a part of that?
 
Three thoughts. First, I've been on the faculty long enough to run into officers who were my students ten or more years ago, who say their war college education and my teaching in particular helped prepare them for their future roles, whether seeing new angles on security challenges or helping them write better logical arguments. SSP certainly helped prepare me for that. I also feel good for not having lost my head during the national security crises the country has experienced in my professional life. I have certainly been wrong! But I think I haven't fallen for panic, going with the crowd, or rank manipulation, and that owes a lot to the analytic tools, historical perspective, and faculty role models from SSP. Lastly, while my childhood was not especially underprivileged I'm actually the first in my family to attend college at all, and I ended up earning a doctorate at MIT.

8) What, outside of SSP and your work here, has been the factor that has most influenced who you are now, and what your current research interests are?

Recently I've shifted my focus to space, mostly military security but also civil and commercial space policy. In many ways that's full circle to the childhood interests that brought me to SSP. A fascination with astronomy and space exploration led to learning about nuclear weapons and missile technology (I was in high school for the 1980s nuclear buildup and "star wars" debate). I gradually shifted from wanting to be a scientist to a primary interest in policy for nuclear weapons and arms control. Post-Cold War at SSP I ended up writing on public opinion and the politics of national security decisions, but I kept a strong interest the intersection of technology and international relations. The return of geopolitics and the U.S. military's surge in demand for space and nuclear expertise provided an opportunity to be more professionally engaged on those issues, and I draw heavily on what I learned at SSP.

My story highlights a disconcerting feature of our line of work: terrible things happening for the nation or the world are often professional boons for security scholars. I wish space weapons and nuclear crises were irrelevant, yet it's true that recent years have been "good" for me. A takeaway for current students is that while we should not chase current events or intellectual fads, understand that demand for our expertise goes through cycles as the security environment changes, and over the long term you may need to adapt.

9) Looking back, what, if anything would you do differently?
 
I arrived at MIT not fully having wrapped my head around the transition from undergraduate "take classes to learn about topics of interest" to doctoral "apprenticeship with scholars to train to produce knowledge". I approached my first years too much like the former. I was also less sure what I wanted to study than I should have been; I seriously considered concentrating on international environmental politics and climate change. Maybe those were reasonable uncertainties for my early 20s as the end of the Cold War scrambled priorities, but I'd recommend prospective PhD students have a clear goal in mind before applying to programs.

10) What is the key piece of advice that you would pass along to current SSP graduate students, or those just beginning their careers?
 
It is too easy to think your professional value consists only of the "Scholarly Publications" section of a CV. SSP is better than most PhD programs in that SSP faculty clearly think non-academic careers are worthwhile and they actively support SSP students who pursue them. Nonetheless, PhD students anywhere receive overwhelming signals that "tenured at top-ranked research university" is the one true goal. That may not be the right goal for everyone. The cold reality of today's academic market also means right or not, it will not be everyone's outcome. Figure out what types of work and what settings really fit you, appreciate the value you create with the work you do, and recognize that there are a lot of ways to put an SSP education to meaningful use.