The Martialist was among the first publications to bring you a comprehensive critique of FM 3-25.150, as we outlined in this article. Specifically, we criticized the politically motivated emphasis on Brazilian JuJitsu (BJJ), which was no doubt driven by the popularity of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) sports in the United States. We’ve taken a lot of grief from people who demanded to know how we dared to criticize a military program — although we’ve also received mail from people within the military who shared our opinion of the program.
Now the Army has admitted that the program needs work — and they’re planning to revise it. The following comes to us courtesy of the Stars and Stripes:
Confronted by a recent survey that shows soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are fighting for their lives in hand-to-hand combat with insurgents, U.S. Army officials are revamping their basic combatives training to better equip American forces to defend themselves.
…More than 50,000 soldiers have completed the Army Combatives Level I course since its inception in 2002, according to an Army release. The training is divided into four levels.
Until now, Level I and II Combatives training focused on ground fighting. But the new Level I and II training will include punching, kicking and grappling by soldiers in “full battle rattle,” Lopez said.
“They’re trying to incorporate more stand-up, more full-gear fighting in Level I and Level II,” he said. “Weapons fighting is becoming more important [in the early stages of Combatives training].”
The changes in the program came about after the Army interviewed more than 900 soldiers who saw hand-to-hand combat in Iraq or Afghanistan, according to an Army news release.
…[T]the change in focus of the Combatives program is also a reflection of the directive from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, to reduce the use of lethal force in Afghanistan.
In other words, the Army has reluctantly admitted that the focus on BJJ is not a realistic approach… but it wants to further muddy the waters by “reducing the use of lethal force.”
God save us from politically correct wars.
Increasingly, soldiers are being used in policing actions and crowd/riot control. The opponents encountered aren’t assumed to be trying to kill you. Symbolic displays of force that express dominance are the first move. You don’t want to make an individual opponent into a bloody martyr with a crowd looking on. In riot situations there are often people who deliberately attempt to create this situation.
Most battle situations are also going to be a team response, where if you are losing control, your buddies can assist. Group fighting is a different set of skills, which used to be part of several Traditional Asian Fighting traditions, but are much less emphasized today.
So, your argument is that BJJ is appropriate to crowd control scenarios? Because that’s ridiculous.
No. The level I stuff was/is there for confidence building more than practicality; most any fighting style would work. The Armed Forces have different objectives than an individual. Troops in the field can develop an overkill mentality. That may be good for short term individual survival, but it makes the locals mad and looks bad on television. The government doesn’t want huge numbers of ultimate individualistic fighters, it wants controllable elements.
Of course BJJ is not appropriate to crowd control or nearly any military operation. I immediately thought “ridiculous” when I heard the of the combatives program. BJJ is fine for a guaranteed one-on-one fight, but absurd for any situation with multiple attackers or potential for deadly weapons. The only useful function would be for a stealth choke.
I have some vintage Army manuals that show hand to hand training from WWII and later. I do not see any ground fighting techniques. All striking and stand up, defense against opponent armed with a knife,handgun or rifle.
What happened to these techniques? If today’s enemy combatants are using grappling to attack our soldiers, it might make sense, but somehow, I don’t think that is the case. My uncle(now deceased) a former POW in Stalag IIB, Germany,WWII, showed me some things he learned in basic training, one was a Koto Gaeshi( bear with my spelling). Effective in knife or unarmed defense. While BJJ may give confidence to soldiers and foster competition,like boxing once did, perhaps some more lethal techniques should be taught. Maybe they are and we are unaware of them. My 2 cents.