Aren't you worried about the "TERRORISTS" getting classified info?
I am often asked whether I am comfortable releasing classified information that could help terrorists. That concern rests on two assumptions: first, that this material was classified; and second, that explaining general tactics gives an adversary a decisive advantage. Neither assumption is correct.
Both Small Unit Tactics and Small Unit Tactics and Raids were formally reviewed and cleared by the U.S. Army for release under two separate concerns:
- Information Security (INFOSEC) protects classified national security information. This is the system that uses formal levels such as Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret.
- Operations Security (OPSEC) protects critical information about activities, intentions, capabilities, limitations, and vulnerabilities—even when the individual facts are unclassified.
The books passed INFOSEC review because the underlying tactics were already available through official Army sources, although often scattered across documents that were harder to understand. They passed OPSEC review because they reveal no unit-specific plans, schedules, targets, intentions, or vulnerabilities. A useful tactic does not automatically lose its value when it is understood in general. Knowing that the U.S. Army can conduct an attack is very different from knowing when, where, how, and with which unit it will attack.
In fact, a prototype of the second book initially failed review because I had included two phrases: Operation Neptune Spear and Delta Force. Both names were widely available in public sources. That taught me that public availability is not the same thing as official declassification: a cleared publication cannot treat repetition by a museum, news outlet, or encyclopedia as authorization to publish information.
The second concern is whether general tactical knowledge helps bad actors. General knowledge is not a substitute for operational detail. In Afghanistan, insurgents with very limited resources still adapted to established room-clearing methods using improvised booby traps. They did not need these books to understand that predictable patterns can be countered. Tactics depend on context, surprise, disciplined execution, and—most importantly—specific knowledge of when and where they will be used.
That is exactly why OPSEC matters. It protects the details that let an adversary act: timing, location, personnel, capabilities, intentions, and vulnerabilities. It does not require every general principle of military education to remain secret.
Why did you enlist in the army after law school?
People in the modern world spend their lives staring at glowing rectangles (screens) from dusk till dawn. I wanted to experience something else for at least part of my life. I wanted some goddamn perspective. So I graduated Columbia Law School in 2015 in May, took the NY and NJ bar exams in August, enlisted as an 18X in September, took an oath in January after basic training, and jumped out of airplanes in airborne school in February.
I always wanted to both join the army and go to law school. My entire childhood, people around me personally and the media generally seemed to give respect and praise Soldiers. (While I'm glad I served my country, and of course man cannot survive on bread alone, first bread, then morality.) And I am great at distilling complicated systems into a narrative, hence the law was a natural fit. Because the army is by its nature a temporary profession, the law has always been a great fallback.
I went to law school first because my brain was in "school mode", so I thought it would be easier to just continue. After graduating college, I applied to Columbia and NYU, was accepted at the former and waitlisted at the latter. If I had been denied at both, I told my parents I was going to enlist then and there. In retrospect, going from law school to lower enlisted caused world-class cultural whiplash, but live and learn.
How did you start writing?
I failed a course called Small Unit Tactics in the Special Forces Qualification Course (SFQC). And then I failed it again. And then I underwent a year-long rehab course before going a third time and succeeding. On the one hand, I was not the strongest candidate. On the other hand, I didn't have great resources. To give one of many examples, during a critical training piece, I was ordered to take care of ammunition while the cadre ordered another student to teach patrol bases. Obviously, I then had no idea what a patrol base was when it counted.
As I trained and retrained, I ended up gathering so many resources that I basically had a book. So I dedicated thousands of hours to formalizing everything I had collected into the official manual I wish I had when I first started out, so nobody else would fail for the reasons I failed.
Why should I listen to you?
Listen to me because other people say I have good ideas. Specifically, I have yet to receive any negative reviews of my books. The only one-star review with a comment actually accused me of giving critical information to "the bad guys," which was, in an odd way, quite a compliment to the material itself. That comment has since been removed for some reason.
Anyway, I have been asked before why my books don't have citations. The reason is that there are simply no peer-reviewed studies on battlefield tactics to cite. All infantry tactics, even in the largest and most advanced military the world has ever seen, are still recorded oral histories of soldiers. And so I could cite the 100-plus official and unofficial resources I use as my foundation; however, looking a little deeper, even those manuals run on "trust me" science.
To be clear, my official stance is that giving the citations would give the reader a false sense of confidence in the tactics. Tactics change constantly with time, location, enemies, and other circumstances. Soldiers must therefore think critically and understand that although the tactics I write about work generally, and definitely worked specifically in innumerable battles, you can't blindly rely on them to work for you just because someone else said they worked for them.
Is that really you on the home page and book cover?
Yes, that was a photo shoot from November 2025. No AI or Photoshop manipulation whatsoever, just some color balancing. I was very lean in that photo and my face looks different if I gain even a few pounds.
But most of the difference has to do with camera magic. The photo was taken at a distance on (I think) a 50 mm lens, which makes the center of the face smaller. In contrast, laptop and phone cameras are much closer to the face and use a ~24 mm lens, so the center of the face is much larger. The harsh lighting also has a significant effect.
Show animationHide animation
Show animationHide animation
To show how different faces look with different camera settings, look at these two photos. They were taken on the same day nine months later. One was taken with a neutral face through a mirror, while the other is a smiling selfie. The former was taken straight on, while the latter is distorted because I am in the corner of the original frame.
