First you insult the "admin types" and know you've insulted reservists. That foot of yours has now passed thru your mouth and is sticking out your a**

You throw out a lot of s*** outlike you know something, but I see absolutly nothing behind it. It sounds that you have read and heard (and maybe even fantised) lots about the military but have never actually got your weenie wet.

This being the case your opinions (both good and bad) are becoming irelevant because you choose not to back them up.

We have a saying in the military - s*** or get of the pot.

And if I'm wrong, I am humble enough to extend my apoligies.

Ubique

So did the original question strike to close to home? You have confirmed the fact with your self righteous indignation. That being aside, yes, you do originally post numerous good and thoughtful topics (most times), however, as soon as an uncomfortable question or opinion contrary to your own is replied, you bend out of shape. Verbal distraction is the politician's trick of diverting attention away from the original subject. Running for office? All the put downs and use of &%##$@, only shows a lack of a coherent and well founded thought process to respond to such queries. As you have noticed, it does'nt work here. There's to much knowledge and diversity amongst the members. Some of the people, some of the time - all the people all the time? No, ah, ah. Instead of getting green with envy (probably the closest you've ever come to being green) why don't you get down to your dojo. Your buddy the GM can probably teach you a thing or two about patience and humility. You may even work off some of the frustration you feel about not having been in the military.

I wouldn't normally wade into a discussion like this, but I guess I'm cranky this morning (yawn).

Okay - here goes ...

First of all, I'm not going to call anybody names or insult their pedigree - I'm simply going to express my own personal point of view.

Unarmed combat trg has its place, to be sure. However, it can also cause problems if somebody decides to use it at the wrong time or place (e.g. "downtown" - there really is some wisdom behind the concept of "just in time delivery" when we're talking about unarmed cbt trg, i.e. as part of pre-deployment trg vice annual trg cycle - it's human nature that some people just can't wait to use a new skill ... whether it's on duty or off ...).

As others have pointed out, it's also a "last resort" - there are a gazillion soldier skills which one must master and employ before resorting to bayonet or hand-to-hand.

Also, if it came down to a question of dollars and sense (pun intended), I'd elect to sign everybody up for hockey instead of unarmed cbt trg.

Why? I perceive more problems today resulting from a lack of teamwork than I do from a lack of unarmed cbt skills (i.e. just look at the bickering between comrades-in-arms ... oh, I don't know ... in the War Diary?)

Additionally, I'm not convinced we're doing a good enough job of "blowing off steam" (which I love to do at the rink, normally with my gloves on ... chuckle ... oh, and if I have to provide my credentials: 24 yrs in, coached professional hockey, and still get paid to play hockey - I'm a rent-a-goalie in my "spare" time, but I play for free when it's a worthy cause).

Hockey is known as "war on ice" (stemming from Lacrosse, which is known as "The Little War"), and both sports contain virtually everything we need to practice for war - in a team environment.

Principles of War as contained in hockey:

Select and Maintain the Aim - are we here to have fun, or to win?

Maintenance of Morale - hmm ... winning is usually fun (see "Select and Maintain the Aim", above) - heck - some people even enjoy hockey! Plus, anybody who's ever been down in a playoff series but came back to win understands the necessity of "never giving up"

Concentration - jamming the crease, kitty bar the door

Economy - you can carry the puck, or you can pass it (not too many can skate faster than a good, crisp pass, by the way). Also, you skate as fast as you can when you're on the ice, and then catch your breath on the bench (NOT the other way around ...chuckle)

Security - pulling the goalie, defencemen pinching, fowards backchecking

Flexibility - forwards backchecking and defencemen rushing, killing penalties, power plays, playing a checking/hitting/firewagon style of game (depending on the opposition and your own skills)

Administration - an NHL player is infamous for growling "Forget the puck - start the game without it" (he was just itching for a fight)

Cooperation - nobody wins by themself

But, I would like to express a couple of thoughts.

I spent 14 years in the regular infantry and served operationally (i.e. on "operations" not on "exercise") in Canada, Germany, Cyprus, Israel, Syria, and Mozambique.

I never received any unarmed combat training from the CF that wasn't part of a PT lesson -- or something that I arranged for the troops myself.

I do believe that professional soldiers should receive unarmed combat training. As bossi points out, this type of training poses a strategic risk to the military because it can easily be misused and cause problems that are difficult to overcome. This would lead me to think that such training is best reserved for regular force combat arms soldiers -- and that we should hold them to a higher standard than we have often done.

Others have pointed out, quite rightly, that there is really no credible thing called "military unarmed combat technique" in Canada. Although, there were UC instructor courses when I was in and some units, like the airborne, I believe conducted this type of training formally -- at least until the "machete" incident and subesequent eventual fall from grace of the Airborne -- see "strategic risk" above!

Others have pointed out, also rightly, that UC like PT, takes regular training in order for it to become instinctive and highly useful. However, there are some simple moves that are easy to remember and exceptionally useful.

Where I disagree with the prevailing opinion, however, is the idea that UC techniques are a "last resort." Would that it were so. Life for an infantryman would be much simpler if she could just shoot her way out of problems. In my experience, this has not been the case.

Even in my relatively unspectacular career as a combat arms officer, I was often close enough to the "enemy" to be offended by his breath. Modern day rules of engagement for operations other than war pretty much make this a given for our soldiers.

In these situations, I relied on my ability to a) think critically and speak persuasively to achieve a positive outcome b) to use my size, equipment and bearing to intimidate and, on a few occasions c) to "lay on hands" in a quick, decisive manner to achieve a specific outcome.

I think it's extremely useful for a combat soldier to be able to very quickly and decisively take physical control of an opponent without having to flail about or shoot/stick someone. This allows him/her to maintain control without escalating the use of force beyond the point of no return.

And, although I never had to fully tax my own skill in this area, I believe that in full-out combat, the ability for soldiers to dispatch opponents in a relatively quiet manner will be a valuable competency.

For what it's worth, I think UC should be reintroduced to the regular force combat arms -- and that self-defence training should be mandatory for everyone else in the military. I would not add time to formal courses for this skill -- I would just make it part of a regular PT regimen. This, alone, would essentially preclude reservists.

Should units bring in external instructors to do this? Often, the answer is "yes" -- purely from a psychological perspective. Training can often be much more effective if it is delivered by an external provider who is perceived by the audience to be a credible "expert."

[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: towhey ]</p>

[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: towhey ]

http://209.82.43.54/flash/army/career/career_profiles/infa_sold.html

Soldier of Fortune