Preface: Let me say this right up front, I am not trying to disparage martial arts. In reading this, some will think I am contradicting what I wrote last about fighting to the gun, fighting for the gun before fighting with the gun. I like martial arts, I physically can't do them much any more because of numerous surgeries, but I think studying martial arts is critical to self-defense.
Having said that, martial arts, or what I will refer to as unarmed combat, should be the last resort in defending yourself, not the first resort. Tim Kennedy is an amazing martial artist, but he does not go on missions with his Special Forces team unarmed. When I said Be The Weapon, I didn't mean be Jeff Speakman taking on organized crime with your bare hands in a movie. Apparently I need to clarify what I wrote last time. I said if you Be The Weapon, you can kill your enemy with a beer bottle or a B2 Bomber, but I was not advocating fighting the Taliban with a beer bottle, the bomber is much more efficient. One of my friends who is a martial artist agreed with me profusely about being the weapon, saying that is why he chooses to defend his home with a katana (a samurai sword) instead of a firearm because it was more "honorable". This was not the point I was trying to make, and it illustrates a big problem in martial arts. They are trying to teach people cultural norms that no longer exist. I think that's fine for kids martial arts programs; teach them honor and integrity and philosophies of non-violence. But we (tragically) no longer live in the era of dueling. So there is no such thing as "honorable combat" In the age of modern terrorism and violent crime. That ended (badly) when the Polish Cavalry charged into Germany's Blitzkrieg on horseback. Honor has nothing to do with self-defense, and being efficient at killing your enemy doesn't make you less honorable.
A great honor of mine was to be considered a personal friend of Grand Master Mike Pick, a tenth degree black belt and one of the best unarmed combat fighters and instructors in America. When I met him he had a knife on one hip and a .45 caliber pistol on the other. He was a Marine in Vietnam and learned the value of the tools of violence when it comes to efficiency. If he's packing heat, maybe you should too.
I love martial arts, and I studied them off and on for twenty years. Some systems I studied were very philosophical, some were very pragmatic, and I liked them both for different reasons. More philosophical arts are not worse than more pragmatic ones, by the way, they just have different goals. All of that is good. But, unarmed combat is the last resort, not the first resort. Thinking a black belt makes you safe against a guy with a sniper rifle is delusional. Tom Clancy once wrote that the first rule of unarmed combat is Don't Get Into It, and I've been telling people that for twenty-five years. It is not, "I choose to put myself at a disadvantage to prove how much more honor I have than my enemy." That will get you shot. By guys like me. We believe in "cheating."
I bring guns to knife fights, I bring Apache gunships to gun fights, and I bring the USS Nimitz Air Wing to wars against insurgents in Toyota trucks. I don't believe in fighting fair. Now, if you live in a place where you can't legally have a firearm, then you have to get good with the most lethal tool you have access to. Another great honor of mine was to attend a knife fighting seminar by Professor David James, who lives in New York City where only felons are allowed to have firearms. So, he trains with a knife. He is the best knife fighter I have ever seen. If you live in such a place, then yes, by all means, get really, really good at fighting with the tools you are allowed to have. If you work in a place where you can't have a gun or knife, like an airliner, then get really good at unarmed combat. I am not legally allowed to have a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, so I have to make due with firearms. And I know enough unarmed combat to get me to my tools of violence.
Unarmed combat skills are very important, primitive weapon skills are very important, but find the most efficient way of eliminating the threat to your person and getting home. There were a hell of a lot of good martial artists in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but the US had a more efficient method of defeating them. In combat, if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying. At no point in any war of the last hundred years did somebody throw down there rifle when their enemy ran out of bullets to go fisticuffs with him; they shot his ass. The guy that wins the hand-to-hand combat engagement because both sides ran out of bullets is the guy with the bigger bayonet. If you do not have to cheat to win, you aren't really in a life or death struggle, you are in a sport. Since sabers at dawn is frowned upon these days, sports are never deliberately mortal anymore. Remember, the first rule of unarmed combat is Don't Get Into It!
Having said that, martial arts, or what I will refer to as unarmed combat, should be the last resort in defending yourself, not the first resort. Tim Kennedy is an amazing martial artist, but he does not go on missions with his Special Forces team unarmed. When I said Be The Weapon, I didn't mean be Jeff Speakman taking on organized crime with your bare hands in a movie. Apparently I need to clarify what I wrote last time. I said if you Be The Weapon, you can kill your enemy with a beer bottle or a B2 Bomber, but I was not advocating fighting the Taliban with a beer bottle, the bomber is much more efficient. One of my friends who is a martial artist agreed with me profusely about being the weapon, saying that is why he chooses to defend his home with a katana (a samurai sword) instead of a firearm because it was more "honorable". This was not the point I was trying to make, and it illustrates a big problem in martial arts. They are trying to teach people cultural norms that no longer exist. I think that's fine for kids martial arts programs; teach them honor and integrity and philosophies of non-violence. But we (tragically) no longer live in the era of dueling. So there is no such thing as "honorable combat" In the age of modern terrorism and violent crime. That ended (badly) when the Polish Cavalry charged into Germany's Blitzkrieg on horseback. Honor has nothing to do with self-defense, and being efficient at killing your enemy doesn't make you less honorable.
A great honor of mine was to be considered a personal friend of Grand Master Mike Pick, a tenth degree black belt and one of the best unarmed combat fighters and instructors in America. When I met him he had a knife on one hip and a .45 caliber pistol on the other. He was a Marine in Vietnam and learned the value of the tools of violence when it comes to efficiency. If he's packing heat, maybe you should too.
I love martial arts, and I studied them off and on for twenty years. Some systems I studied were very philosophical, some were very pragmatic, and I liked them both for different reasons. More philosophical arts are not worse than more pragmatic ones, by the way, they just have different goals. All of that is good. But, unarmed combat is the last resort, not the first resort. Thinking a black belt makes you safe against a guy with a sniper rifle is delusional. Tom Clancy once wrote that the first rule of unarmed combat is Don't Get Into It, and I've been telling people that for twenty-five years. It is not, "I choose to put myself at a disadvantage to prove how much more honor I have than my enemy." That will get you shot. By guys like me. We believe in "cheating."
I bring guns to knife fights, I bring Apache gunships to gun fights, and I bring the USS Nimitz Air Wing to wars against insurgents in Toyota trucks. I don't believe in fighting fair. Now, if you live in a place where you can't legally have a firearm, then you have to get good with the most lethal tool you have access to. Another great honor of mine was to attend a knife fighting seminar by Professor David James, who lives in New York City where only felons are allowed to have firearms. So, he trains with a knife. He is the best knife fighter I have ever seen. If you live in such a place, then yes, by all means, get really, really good at fighting with the tools you are allowed to have. If you work in a place where you can't have a gun or knife, like an airliner, then get really good at unarmed combat. I am not legally allowed to have a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, so I have to make due with firearms. And I know enough unarmed combat to get me to my tools of violence.
Unarmed combat skills are very important, primitive weapon skills are very important, but find the most efficient way of eliminating the threat to your person and getting home. There were a hell of a lot of good martial artists in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but the US had a more efficient method of defeating them. In combat, if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying. At no point in any war of the last hundred years did somebody throw down there rifle when their enemy ran out of bullets to go fisticuffs with him; they shot his ass. The guy that wins the hand-to-hand combat engagement because both sides ran out of bullets is the guy with the bigger bayonet. If you do not have to cheat to win, you aren't really in a life or death struggle, you are in a sport. Since sabers at dawn is frowned upon these days, sports are never deliberately mortal anymore. Remember, the first rule of unarmed combat is Don't Get Into It!
Soule
Easy 6
No comments:
Post a Comment