Close Quarters Combat and Modern Warfare (2000)

Technical advances in modern warfare have compromised the combat needs of individual soldiers who must confront the enemy at some point to complete their missions. New battlefield technology distances the individual soldier psychologically and physically from the enemy. To some people, these developments diminish or eliminate the need for hand-to-hand and rifle-- bayonet training at the small-unit level. Consequently, close quarters combat (CQC) training, which encompasses both hand-to-hand and rifle-bayonet skills, is no longer perceived as a mission-essential skill for today's high-tech soldier. CQC training prepares soldiers to face the enemy in the last six feet of a battlefield. At this range, the most-- effective weapon is still an individual soldier trained in hand-to-hand combat and rifle-bayonet techniques: CQC is the final option. With it, soldiers can engage and defeat an enemy face-to-face when retreat or avoidance is not possible and injury, death or capture are the consequence of failure. Determinants of Survival in CQC Three things determine success and survival in CQC: an aggressive mind-set, a survival mentality and skills specifically designed for the type of combat. An aggressive mindset can be defined as the willingness to kill, maim or injure the enemy as the mission or personal survival requires. A survival mentality enables a soldier to engage an enemy and continue to fight despite pain, injury and the prospect of death or capture. The third determinant-CQC skills-involves the execution of techniques specifically designed to render an opponent unconscious, dead or incapable of fighting. CQC Versus Combative Sports A martial art may be practiced with four different goals in mind: sport proficiency, physical discipline or exercise, mental discipline or as a way of life, and as a means of self defense. CQC training is a military application of the self defense goal. Although combative sports (CS) and CQC training overlap, CQC training focuses on combative skills, a specific training environment and an aggressive mind-set not normally part of training. Fair play and sportsmanship are expected and approved behaviors in all sports. However, fair play and good sportsmanship are inappropriate in CQC and can have unfortunate and even lethal consequences. Both CS and CQC training encourage a soldier to seek and exploit the opponent's or enemy's weaknesses, but in CQC the consequences can be lethal. While the physical, cognitive and affective training in CS somewhat parallels what occurs in CQC training, at the moment of truth in competition, an instructor, coach or referee protects the antagonists from serious injury. There are no ref erees on the battlefield. CQC skills are often confused with those of boxing, wrestling, competitive karate or judo. CS techniques are a function of the discipline's style and philosophy. The most prized techniques are those that facilitate scoring under competitive rules. Techniques deemed dangerous or even lethal are modified or prohibited in competition to reduce the possibility of injury. CQC techniques are practiced because of their effect on an enemy, not because they would facilitate scoring in CS competition. Injurious CS techniques and their underlying abilities can be acquired and honed in a controlled risk environment. However, participation in CS alone can promote attitudes, behaviors and skills incompatible with CQC focus and an aggressive survival mind-set. In CQC, soldiers may be involved in life-threatening situations that do not entail the same degree of social accountability present in CS competitions. A final concern when comparing CQC training and CS is the training environment. CQC training is generally conducted in a field environment at the small-unit level. CS training is generally conducted in a gymnasium or training environment structured to optimize learning and sport performance. …