Creating Better Warriors
by Jim Wagner

Perhaps the reason our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan haven’t been able to decisively defeat the insurgents is they’re not using the traditional techniques and training methods that were employed in previous conflicts. Because so many of them read Black Belt, I decided to make this installment of High Risk focus on the things the U.S. military should do to make our soldiers more successful on the battlefield:

• The skirmish line was an effective defense for thousands of years, so why not bring it back? Our troops should stand shoulder to shoulder, pointing their weapons as they prepare to shoot the moment the enemy pops his head out. That way, they could cut the rebels down en mass, or at least intimidate them with advancing rows of brave soldiers.

• Rather than spend so much money on computerized battle simulators and force-on-force training (simulated warfare using marking ammunition, props and realistic surroundings), soldiers should learn the patterns Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte employed in their battles. These tactics were successful then; there’s no reason they wouldn’t work now. Our commanders should memorize the flanking movements and aggressive charges, then practice the movements step by step—even if it means training solo and just visualizing how an enemy might counter the attacks. Simply going through the motions will be enough to prepare our soldiers for all future battles.

• Members of our military should ditch their uniforms and gear. Combat boots and battle dress uniforms are simply too restrictive. They should be replaced with the cotton or wool skirts and leather sandals that were worn 2,000 years ago—at least for training. While they’re at it, they should practice their battle maneuvers on flat lawns, not on torn-up, debris-filled terrain where they’re likely to twist an ankle or fall into a hole.

I could go on with more examples, but you’d probably think I’d gone completely mad. Of course, all the suggestions listed above are preposterous. None was meant to be taken seriously. Even if you have no military experience, you know that many of the techniques and training methods armies used in bygone years would be inappropriate for modern warfare. With that said, why do those who claim to teach self-defense continue to use outdated techniques and training methods and pass them off as viable strategies today?

Unfortunately, many readers still don’t get what the reality-based movement is all about. For example, someone claiming to be a former police officer sent in a letter to the editor titled “Kata Are More Than a Routine” (Black Belt, October 2004). He was all bent out of shape because of a comment I made in my March 2004 column: “If kata truly had any fighting value, military units and police agencies would practice them. The fact that they don’t should send a clear message to all of us.”

The reader replied with the following argument: “This statement clearly indicates the author’s lack of knowledge—both of the martial arts and of law-enforcement and military self-defense training.” He then noted how valuable forms are because the samurai handed them down, and that kata compose the foundation of today’s military and law-enforcement training. He also claimed that committing something to muscle memory is the same as executing a kata.

Now, the writer is entitled to his opinion, but his letter only illustrates the point I’m trying to make. Before he starts burning an effigy of me, let me just state once again that I’m not against the traditional martial arts. I’m not against Civil War or medieval re-enactments, either. They have their place and time, and many people are drawn to them. I love to watch them, and I’d hate to get a mace up side the head. My problem is with people who try to sell me on outdated techniques and training methods, then have the nerve to tell me and other Black Belt readers that traditional styles are the best way to handle modern conflicts.

Granted, some truths never change. Fighting with a bayonet attached to the end of a rifle today is virtually the same as it was 500 years ago. However, we should have enough sense to know it’s not a good idea to stand in a skirmish line simply because one part of an ancient fighting system works. The logical thing to do is to take the universal truths of conflict and strip away whatever is useless. Wasn’t that the message Bruce Lee was trying to send? Wasn’t it also the goal Krav Maga instructors were striving to accomplish when they founded the system at the Wingate Institute in the mid-1970s?

Occasionally, I have to remind readers that three branches of the martial arts have emerged in the past few years: tradition-based, sport-based and reality-based. If you know which category you fit in, you won’t get confused about the goals that are specific to it—and you won’t be offended when I write about the modern tactics and training methods that make up the reality-based section.

About the author: Jim Wagner is a police and military defensive-tactics instructor and a civilian reality-based personal-protection trainer. For more information, visit http://www.jimwagnertraining.com.