AikiWeb Aikido Forums

AikiWeb Aikido Forums (
-   Non-Aikido Martial Traditions (
-   -   Military Training Methodologies (

Kevin Leavitt 05-25-2008 08:41 PM

Military Training Methodologies
Thought I'd start a new thread so as not to hijack Mary's thread any further.

Matthew Gano wrote:


You probably explained this in a prior discussion, but I was curious about what it is you think might be confusing or otherwise detrimental to a soldier. Referring to your remarks about institutional and personal aims, I can understand how a lot of the Aikido componants might not fit very well: some reishiki could potentially waste time and I understand how trying to not harm an attacker could get you killed in a firefight, but it seems to me the physical qualities of Aikido (aikijutsu, essentially), as well as many of the concepts would be pretty useful.
Relaxation in particular seems invaluable. I'm not a soldier so I don't want to sound presumptuous; please forgive me if I do, I know these are just an outsider's take. When I think of a tense soldier I think of a fear-based, rigid mindset. When i think of a relaxed soldier I think of a fearless, flexible mindset. Obviously these are merely my own perceptions, but I'm curious about how you would characterize the two.
Take care,
It is not that it is not useful to train relaxation skills. I'd recommend reading "On Killing" by Grossman, and also "In Search of the Warrior Spirit" by Strozzi-Heckler for two good examples of dealing with the pyschological and cultural mindset of the military, especially as it applies to Soldiers.

Anyway, it has more to do with methodology than with the concept. That is, how you train. If you want to be good at shooting relaxed in a stressful environment then you train shooting in a stressful environment, not wearing a Gi in a dojo practicing aikido.

My OCS candidates at the beginning of every class used to ask me how they could improve their pushups, well the answer I always gave them was more pushups.

Sure the physical qualities that we train in aikido are very relevant and I find my training to be personally helpful in my daily life. I also feel I have benefited in many ways from my training.

It is also the case with many other soldiers as well. Personally I feel that others too could benefit from the "soft" lessons that aikido has to offer.

However, you are dealing with an institution, a successful one, that has been evolving since the early colonial days.

So, how long does it take you to realize the "soft" or "internal" benefits of aikido? 2 months? 2 Years, 10 Years? 20?

How do you sustain such a practice with an instituion that has to take 18 year olds and put them in the heat of battle within a few short months?

What do you spend your time doing with them? teaching them aikido, or teaching them how to move into the heat of battle and react properly, even when scared?

How do you best train them?

The answer is through Stress Induction models.

BJJ is a good example martially of a stress induciton methdology. You can take a novice, put him in a program, and have him fairly martially proficient in a realitively short period of time. Sure, at the upper levels, it requires and you benefit from the same level of finese and relaxation of internal arts.

BJJ works on a stress induction model that more or less follows the philosophy of "train as you fight". Which is why you see it being so successful up front.

There is a certain pyschology you try to induce or to exploit in a warrior. Stress induction models build this.

It isn't for everyone. It ain't about fairness or being equal. It is about forging mental toughness. There are many that wash out of training or quit because it is not for them. Better to have it happen in training than in war.

those that "graduate" or become soldiers become so because they have the values and mindset that the Army is looking for.

The stress induction model helps build confidence, skills, and habits. In turn this helps reduce fear and encourage relaxation which flows out of the confidence, skills, and habits.

Being able to put a bullet on target in a CQB environment requires a great deal of conditioning and training. It starts in basic training with having a drill sgt yell at you and inducing stress. You go to a rifle range and learn how to put well aimed shots on targets at 300 M. Which requires learning how to control breathing and is taught.

You then spend time perfecting your shooting crouch and posture and doing dime drills and reflexive fire training, which by the way requires many of the same attributes you might find in suburi.

You do it over and over and over again, developing habits and muscle memory.

You then do it from the inside your vehicle, in buildings, and etc.

Think of doing a thousand suburi cuts over and over again. After a while you either learn to relax...or you get very tired!

Same with soldiering. You learn soldiering by doing soldiering. Train as you fight.

So, what is left?

What each individual finds is important mentally and spiritually for their own well being and state of mind.

For me, martial arts through the Modern Army Combatives Program, BJJ, and Aikido keep me physically, mentally, and spiritually "in shape".

Others have other things that they do. Some might play rugby, soccer, attend church, some choose to supress themselves emotionally and detach from the situation (denial, which is not a good thing).

Anyway you have to separate the institution from the personal when you start talking soldiering. It is not that aikido is not beneficial, it is simply a different methodology that is not as effective at training the same things we train in soldiering.

Sorry for the long post, I hope this helps explain it some.

Kevin Leavitt 05-25-2008 09:07 PM

Re: Military Training Methodologies
Dan Harden Wrote:


Well I don't know how a single question (asked twice, then answered) equals "all this talk about..."
I referenced what I have read and what I have been told personally by guys recently out of spec ops, along with some guys who train with Vlad and Michael, I asked Kevin how he thinks his model would compare to their training model involving extensive relaxation in motion. Oh well.

The rest, William, was addressing an idea often expressed by Kevin over the years that somehow relaxation in internal training, was static, stagnant and could not by used in grappling/Judo/ BJJ or any live environment. It's all here in many, many threads and posts. When I saw the same thought come to light again in this thread regarding relaxation and a failure to be able to move well, it piqued my interest. I can understand a lack in understanding of real power and speed in relaxation and structure from the people he regularly trains with, but I thought he would see something more from his new pursuits. Especially since he has trained with Ark and Mike.. I guess not.
Time and different levels of experience on both sides have formed opinions. It's just an old debate not worth pursuing any longer. I'd just as soon thank Kevin for his service and be done with it.
I'm out.
Dan, I can't really comment on Systema or Vlad's training as I have never worked with them, only seen it on the internet. Looking at Vlad's stuff on the internet though, I find how he moves and does things very interesting.

Not sure how it would work for us in the Army though since I don't have any experience with it.

Here is how we train MAC-P.

Obviously on a daily basis we are not training at this level of intensity, but when we spend time training everything we do is based on this endstate.

So I hope you understand when I have to go in the ring and face one of these guys that is gunning for a piece 43 year old Field Grade I have to figure out how to survive.

So far, as interesting and intriqued with the internal stuff, I have not yet figured out how to effectively implement it, or figured out how it will help me survive a bout in MAC-P or with the enemy.

I am trying, but so far I am not successful. Heck I can't even do it well in an aikido class!

I personally think soldiers would better benefit by spending more time training in MAC-P than anything else when it comes to training for combat.

KIT 05-25-2008 09:20 PM

Re: Military Training Methodologies
Good thread, Kevin.

I come from the LE side of the coin, both patrol and special ops (SWAT).

You simply have to train "CQB" and tactics as you would a martial art. It is, in fact, a martial art. To echo Kevin, you also have to train extensively in "stress induction" (what in LE is called stress inoculation), in other words, against a resisting, opposing will trying to do the same thing to you. In other words, judo/BJJ/MMA approach to randori where both sides are trying to "win." In LE, this takes the form of force on force training (with marking cartridges or hand to hand combat). The nice thing is, the level of resistance can be ratcheted (sp?) up or down based on the level of the trainee or the level of familiarity with the skill set.

Regarding tension and relaxation, I think this is a critical point, one that Kevin has alluded to.

The "tense" guys, the kind I like to call "fear biters," are the guys screaming on the radio so that they are unintelligible, the guys who are so amped up they can't properly assess a situation, the guys who get so jacked up when they are on a door prior to an entry, or when they are in a high stress incident that everyone around them is concerned, gets a higher level of stress, and wonders about the "loose cannon." They are out there, and sometimes I think there are more of them than not.

The relaxed guys, the ones with the "flexible" kamae (with all the mental and physical aspects that connotes), are the ones who are together, breathing deeply on the door, focussed and "electricified" yet not amped, and whose presence helps to control the others. I have been on operations where an abrupt change in circumstance, or a surprise location of the suspect, jacks everyone up and the screaming starts until someone yells out "stand by" or "calm down." I have actually told people to take a deep breath, and told them to "remember your breathing" just before a door was breached and shots were fired because I knew we would perform better as a team if guys were focussed.

Calm is contagious, but so is fear based tension. Reality is a balancing act between the to and staying keeping the bubble closer to calm and relaxed than to tense. There is just no time, sometimes, to focus on being relaxed so it has to be ingrained through training that makes you relax under duress. Competitive martial arts (a la Judo, BJJ, etc.) are an excellent way to learn what that means. What you learn has to be removed from the sportive context and applied to the combative one.

Kevin Leavitt 05-25-2008 09:20 PM

Re: Military Training Methodologies
Here is another link:

This link shows some soldiers (novice) at a local post conducting MAC-P training. What is interesting is it shows you the basic attitude and menality of soldiers. Not sure what these guys are, but they are not SF guys.

Most of these guys are not fighters and probably don't know jack about martial arts form the look at the skill level. The thing to look at is their mentality and attitude.

We talk about this quite a bit in MAC-P. The agressive ones win the ones that aren't lose. How relaxed do the winners look?

How relaxed or better yet "mentally prepared" for battle do you think these soldiers would be after training this way? better or worse?

Aikibu 05-26-2008 02:41 AM

Re: Military Training Methodologies
Thanks for the great posts Kevin and Kit.You both hit the nail on the head. I really have nothing to add except my alluding to learning the OODA Loop which I posted in the other thread...

I have personally experianced the most intense combat training the Army has to offer which is the basis for my posts on the subject and a point of referance for you good folks.

In my experiance the Army training methodology is the quickest most efficient way to convert fear biters into cold blooded killers...

Where you go from there parses into an even greater paradigm but for that I must depend on those who have survived the experiance of Infantry Combat or Officer Involved Shootings. I completely trust and reley upon both your opinions in that regard.

I first read Dave Grossman's book when it came out. there is some dispute regarding his historical thesis however...A companion book about the paradigm of military training is SIr John Keegan's excellent "The Face of Battle" along with one Kevin my be familiar with "The Mask of Command."

William Hazen

KIT 05-26-2008 11:16 AM

Re: Military Training Methodologies

William Hazen wrote: (Post 207303)

In my experiance the Army training methodology is the quickest most efficient way to convert fear biters into cold blooded killers...

...and the ability to remain self-possessed and NOT over-reacting or resorting to "spraying and praying" when under that kind of pressure.

That is one of the greatest benefits of this training methodology (which is very similar to the current police force on force training paradigm, at least with agencies that are cutting edge).

You create people who are more confident with use of force, which in turn often makes them less apt to use force inappropriately. Force Science Research Center showed this with some studies on Simunition f/x scenario training. The more exposure one has to such things the colder one's blood gets, so to speak. It sounds harsh, but it actually saves lives.

FWIW, if you are training appropriately, under realistic duress with realistic dynamics, I have learned that is about 2/3ds the battle when the bullets (or the blades, or what have you) are real.

The other is more personal: and where I think the true warrior mindset comes in. Training in progressively more demanding force on force trains the mind and body in much the same way combat sport does: it makes you physically tougher, and it refines your tactics and technical proficiency.

That other 3d is in being "okay" with facing death. I disagree with some classic bushi writers on the warriors job being "to die." Facing death, certainly, but anyone can throw their life away. I think Musashi pointed that out.

One must be absolutely willing to face death;

but absolutely unwilling to die.

I have only two reasons for doing so (putting myself in harm's way): to protect my family, and in certain rare circumstances in my professional duty. I have only had to face the latter situation. Thankfully!

To bring this home for the majority of readers, something to chew on and think about and "get right with" when they consider how this topic may relate to their own training in aikido and self defense:

Visualize frequently. The way that I think it was Suzuki Shosan said a warrior must daily meditate on his death in various and sundry ways to get accustomed to that thought.

He's partly right.

I change one thing: daily meditate on facing death, on all sorts of hideous scenarios on threats to your person and to that of your family.

But ALWAYS stay in the fight. Literally visualize being shot in the face and continuing the fight to save your family and yourself. Don't always be the "easy" winner, but come up with almost impossible odds and defeat them.

Come up with different responses to the same scenario, but always overcoming.

The way I like to put it:

Be a Warrior, not a Worrier.

KIT 05-26-2008 11:22 AM

Re: Military Training Methodologies
LOL. Kevin I just noticed your avatar - that would be a perfect rolleyes smiley!

Kevin Leavitt 05-26-2008 11:55 AM

Re: Military Training Methodologies
I think boddhidharma probably got tired of being asked if sitting in a cave for 10 years worked in real life.

Ketsan 05-26-2008 02:20 PM

Re: Military Training Methodologies

Kevin Leavitt wrote: (Post 207321)
I think boddhidharma probably got tired of being asked if sitting in a cave for 10 years worked in real life.

Nah, I reckon he was in the cave to escape being asked if Kung Fu worked and he only came out once he'd defeated that part of himself that got p***ed off when people asked. :D

SeiserL 05-26-2008 06:07 PM

Re: Military Training Methodologies
"The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in combat."

"You fight the way you train."

The closer the training scenario simulation to the target application, the easier to generalize and transfer (especially gross muscle memory) acquired skills.

Kevin Leavitt 05-26-2008 07:30 PM

Re: Military Training Methodologies

The one thing that always concerns me with these types of methodologies is that they may not always consider the "whole" of the person.

Strozzi-Heckler Sensei rights about this very personally in "In Search of the Warrior Spirit".

The Challenge is training someone this way and then having them return to normalcy after the battle.

In the army we have alot of ways we try to help people mentally and spiritually, however, it is a personal challenge in many cases.

I think Musashi has alot to offer in this area for warriors.

I am curious is to how LEOs deal with this as they tend to be more closely integrated into communities and families than soldiers.

Kevin Leavitt 05-26-2008 07:44 PM

Re: Military Training Methodologies
Here is a good example of CQB training we did last year when I was in Germany. It shows the amount of control and methodicalness we try to instill in soldiers and teams.

Michael Hackett 05-26-2008 11:00 PM

Re: Military Training Methodologies
Interestingly enough, recent studies have shown that the law enforcement officer who has taken a life in the line of duty will only serve another 18 months on average. That includes both "good" and "bad" shootings.

What usually happens after the smoke has cleared is that supervisors and investigators respond to the scene. Most agencies will seize the officer's weapon (some will give him a replacement at that same moment and others won't) for various tests. He will be interviewed by criminal investigators and administrative investigators and then taken off duty for a period of time and not allowed to return until he has been psychologically debriefed and cleared. Assuming the shooting was legal, moral and within policy, the officer can just about count on being named in a lawsuit that will drag out several years. There is some evidence that other officers who voice their support for the action actually make the situation worse for the shooter.

We get, to various degrees, great training on when to shoot, when not to shoot and how to shoot. We don't get much training on the aftermath of a shooting incident and that appears to be almost as crippling as incoming rounds can be. My thought is that the officer isn't given the support of his peers in a prolonged combat environment and that his basic mission is that of a peace officer rather than soldier. In the Hollywood version, the soldier only kills those defined enemies who are trying to kill him, while the cop only shoots to wound or (my personal favorite) shoot the weapon from the bad guy's hand.

The training for military folks and law enforcement folks is similar, but so different at the same time as to be apples and oranges so to speak.

KIT 05-27-2008 12:01 AM

Re: Military Training Methodologies
Its not the peers that are the problem. Its the administrators. Overwhelmingly the officers who report "problems" after a shooting don't have a problem with the shooting, but the ill conceived and poorly handled reaction of administrators.

Things regarding peers are a different story, some good some bad. I won't go into that here.

Michael Hackett 05-27-2008 01:39 AM

Re: Military Training Methodologies
Remarkably, as a former administrator, I agree with you in part. What I was referring to was the locker room conversations where brother officers pat you on the back and tell you how great it was that you dumped someone and similar. Many, if not most, officers have related that they didn't feel like shooting someone was a great feat deserving of accolades. They are confronted with all the issues I mentioned earlier, plus they seem to second guess themselves and are quite bothered by those kinds of comments. What I've heard from them in my own experience is that they would be pleased if their brother and sister officers simply said "I'm glad you're OK" and let it go at that. Asking him "what did it feel like?" and those kinds of things just aren't very helpful to someone in turmoil, and they are.

Now, what we suits can put them through is pretty bad too. Some pretty bright agencies are now doing things like giving patrol supervisors an extra duty weapon to immediately exchange with the shooting officer, arranging for a peer counselor immediately, having support immediately available for the officer and before any questioning, and requiring a psych debrief - some officers wouldn't ask for help under any circumstances, believing that they will look weak in front of their peers. By requiring the debrief in each and every case, it becomes mandatory and the officer can effectively save face. He may or may not get some benefit from the counseling, but since he doesn't have a choice, he can't be viewed as a weakling by those around him. Not perfect, but good steps to help someone recover from a terrible situation.

I've seen exactly what you describe. The very first Officer Involved Shooting I was associated with, the officer was disarmed, placed in a patrol car and informed that he was under arrest for murder! This all took place in the very first minutes of what was clearly a legitimate use of deadly force. The involved officer was disturbed as you can imagine, but went on and had a successful career and everyone learned something from the whole event. I would like to think that we are much better now. Some are and surely some aren't.

KIT 05-27-2008 10:44 AM

Re: Military Training Methodologies

I think it depends on the officer, and depends on the shooting. I know guys who have no trouble at all with the thought of having "dumped" someone - virtually ALL of their issues are with administrative follow up and screwed up policies afterwards - from virtually ignoring there was a shooting at all (in this day and age, believe it or not!) to having an officer on admin leave after a shooting call daily and "check in" in a demeaning way, to an administrator without credibility.

That officer was "saved" because people congratulated him and told him he did a good job.

There seems to be a trend in LE Administration to address all shootings by all officers as the same kind of traumatic event - a cookie cutter that all shootings screw all people up.

Truth is, some people are more than willing to shoot people that need shot. In fact, doing so is a validation of their training. Not because they "wanted" to shoot someone, but because for some, that is the ultimate challenge to face in LE and they want to be known as rising to the occasion when the occasion justified it, rather than shrinking from it.

These kinds of guys scare administrators. Example: during Katrina, a number of our guys wanted to volunteer to go down to New Orleans to help - going through the necessary channels to make it offical.

They were summarily told "No," and it got back that the reason was "our people aren't going down there to shoot people."

Or the bank robber/hostage taker shot in the face by an officer - only to have the media told it was in the chest, because "we can't have people thinking we shoot people in the head."

I know for a fact the officer had no problem with doing what he had to do. The heartburn came from administrative dissembling, hand wringing, and excessively "poor baby"-ing a guy who was perfectly OK with what he did.

Sure, some aren't keen on ever facing that challenge, but do it if they have to.Those may have some problems.

Some are willing, but second guess whether they "should have" under their particular circumstances. Also a potential problem.

Some never, ever want to face it, and indeed run from it. They are not indicative of the profession as a whole. And tend to have the worst problems.

As I say, most cops carry a gun to defend themselves, not to step in harm's way to defend others. Most will do it if they have to, but for some, it is the driving purpose of the profession. To Serve and Protect. Some are more servants, some are more protectors.

I think addressing them all as if they are all the same is the primary issue. I don't have the answer, but I think the dialogue is a good one. All views just have to be brought to the table.

I've nver seen anything as bad as your "under arrest for murder" situation - yikes!

Michael Hackett 05-27-2008 01:20 PM

Re: Military Training Methodologies
Hi Kit,

I think we are hijacking the thread somewhat, but my question to you is should an agency develop a tiered form of response to a police shooting event? I fully agree that some officers are more willing than others to use deadly force. Some are truly reluctant for whatever reasons and some will do just do it because they have to. I personally think it would be detrimental to the health and welfare of the involved officer if his agency presumed what his emotional state is at that point and would be in the future. I honestly believe a standardized approach is the best answer for these situations, albeit the approach MUST be reasonable, well thought out, and designed to care for the officer.

As you said, some folks won't be bothered at all and some will be devastated. I've only personally known of one of the former. I think part of the program is to ensure that those who may be damaged aren't compared unfavorably to those few who aren't and that's why I support the mandatory debrief process for all hands. I think our views are fairly aligned, but our vantage point is just a little different.

Aikibu 05-27-2008 02:35 PM

Re: Military Training Methodologies
I think this excellent exchange between you illustrates a key premise in Dave Grossman's book and the reason that although LE and Miltary training takes a different approach towards the paradox of killing someone The results of killing someone are almost the same in both venues. According to Grossman

Human Beings have a natural aversion to killing other Human Beings and there are real consequences for the survivor.

Physcological Trauma affects almost 1 in 3 frontline combat soldiers. I don't know what the stats are for L.E. "Shooters" but since most are at close range (i.e within eyesight) I'll bet it's the same and considering the stress most Officers go through in the course of thier day I wonder if there is ANY management/treatment method for healing those folks who undergo such trauma Civilian or Military....

William Hazen

Kevin Leavitt 05-27-2008 08:25 PM

Re: Military Training Methodologies
Not hijacking the thread at all! It is good to hear you guys talk about the "day after".

KIT 05-27-2008 11:42 PM

Re: Military Training Methodologies
Grossman bases some of that fundamental premise on the work of SLA Marshall, who admittedly cooked his books to support a foregone conclusion. Strategos International and other forums have discussed this extensively, and IIRC someone has written a critique of Grossman. Google those in combination and you'll get some fascinating reading.

That being said he has some good things to say - just take with a grain of salt.

Michael - I don't know the answer. I don't mean to imply that a mandatory debrief shouldn't be the order of the day - but administrators and psychologists need to accept that officers will have different responses and come from different places, and that after the initial debrief they cannot be dealt with in a cookie cutter manner.

I do believe that we are going to eventually see a greater division between the kind of cops that do "armed social work," and the kind that "protect society" from a blatantly martial stance.

Obviously all will have some overlap, but I see particular officers being pre-selected for more the warrior role. For example the current discussion in the field regarding choosing school resource officers for their tactical acumen, which is an about face from the current "officer friendly" type that are overwhelmingly in that role. Problem is, many of the "tactically inclined" are not ideally suited, and less than thrilled, about that kind of work.

So many questions, so few answers, I know.

Michael Hackett 05-28-2008 01:45 AM

Re: Military Training Methodologies
There actually was a movement some years ago to create several different career paths for local law enforcement. One path would be traditional patrol, which included tactical and other specialized "warrior" type units. The second would be for investigators and the third for administrative roles. That really didn't go too terribly far. Part of the consideration was that the patrol types would be the ones getting hurt, killed and worn out. Sounds kinda like the infantry as opposed to the 506th Messkit Repair Company?

In my own agency we had psych evals done on every SWAT candidate, after creating a model. It was really fascinating to read the evaluations. In a few cases, the doc suggested that we pass on the individual, but what was most remarkable to me was his assessment of the individual for leadership or other roles. For example, the doc would tell the candidate and us that the candidate should not be considered for a leadership role in the team, but could be counted on to be a highly reliable perimeter officer or similar. The various team roles were suggested such as entry team members, sniper/observers, security, logistics and so on.

There was another interesting movement in the mid 80s at San Diego PD. Norm Stamper, who was an Assistant Chief at the time, wanted to do away with ranks and replace them with "agent" "supervisor" and "manager". As I recall his proposed program, he also wanted to eliminate the traditional uniform as well. That didn't go anyplace in San Diego and Norm didn't implement it in Seattle when he became Chief there. There were a couple of California agencies that did experiment with a blazer and slacks uniform, but I don't think there are any left today.

We are still asking the same questions of ourselves that O.W. Wilson pondered when considering our basic mission. Each jurisdiction and each community is different in their real and perceived needs and each agency is challenged to meet them. As soon as I can figure it all out, I will write my textbook and questions on the promotional exams will come right out of my book!

KIT 05-28-2008 09:04 AM

Re: Military Training Methodologies

RE: Leadership/pre-assigned roles.

That was VERY forward thinking. Some of that just kind of happens with guys gravitating to what they want to do, but then again, some guys end up in positions where they are in over their head - and it affects the entire unit.

Interesing re: the blazer and slacks - I think its morphed into a different look for people in most specialty units, a kind of cross between tactical cop (vest worn outside, drop holster) and polo shirts and 5.11s or jeans. There is good and bad to this, but the softer look (minus the CDI gear) has some positive benefits.

We've really gotten off the track from "Military Training Methodologies, now!

Bill Danosky 05-28-2008 11:28 AM

Re: Military Training Methodologies
Let's roll with it, then- How about hearing the flip side of this issue?

As a hippie civilian type, I prefer that police officers have all the necessary capabilities to protect themselves and effectively carry out their duties, but that they keep in mind their primary responsibility is to protect and serve the public.

Even those of us who're sterling citizens feel more threatened than sheltered by our police forces. Admittedly, cops have had a bad run locally- a couple officers have been fired for excessive use of force flashlights, one is being tried currently for stalking and raping a number of young women, and one shot and killed a retarded teenager during a pullover for a gas station pump and driveoff a few years back.

I'm not playing Polyanna- I see it's tough and plenty dangerous out there. But since we have street cops and administrators both present, I'd love to hear how everyone thinks we can have a kinder/gentler constabulary.

Aikibu 05-28-2008 11:34 AM

Re: Military Training Methodologies

Kit Leblanc wrote: (Post 207453)
We've really gotten off the track from "Military Training Methodologies, now!

Perhaps...LOL But there is a definate link between LE and Military Methodologies. Lots of folks (including me) complained loudly after 9/11 when he whose name is not worth mentioning took most of our response to terrorism out of Law Enforcement's hands and force fed it to the Military. Five years later we appeared to have come full circle with both Military and LE training methodologies blending together a heck of allot better and the Military adapting more of a LE mindset in terms of Counterterrorism/Asymetric Warfare....

On the tactical leval ala CQB these days from what I have been told you almost can't tell the differance.

When I was an Military Advisor/Observer of the LASO SEB's CT Team for the 84 Olympics believe me that was NOT the case. LOL
After a few tactical exercises run on Fort MacArthur most of those poor SEB Deputy's realized they needed to totally revamp thier tactics for CT.

Like I said I have been out since 94 I have watched a few Demo's since then both LE and Military and like I already mentioned I can't really tell the differance tactically.

William Hazen

KIT 05-28-2008 12:42 PM

Re: Military Training Methodologies

By way of explanation, I think you are conflating two issues.

Pointing to unprofessional and criminal behavior with an implication that this is indicative of the "protector" types is not what I am talking about. It is thuggish behavior no matter who is doing it. Plenty "kinder, gentler" officers who ride roughshod over the public are the same folks that would be unable and unwilling to place their lives at risk to save you during a hostage situation or active shooter.

All LEO are of course in service to the public, and it is their duty to do so professionally and by adhering to best practices. It is in the nature of their service.

Let's start from a baseline of professional, non-criminal behavior. (Not disregarding that you certainly have individual officer and even systemic problems within some police organizations leading to the lack of trust that Bill is talking about.) Then again, you also have people who just hate cops, and people who are scared of them, no matter what they do.

The disinction I am making is you have "protectors," in other words more warrior types, who are mentally more suited for proactive and decisive tactical action against violent criminal - and as William has touched on - terrorist threats.

By "servants," I mean the more social servies oriented types who got into LE not to place themselves between the bullets and the citizens, but to be a conduit for social services of all types. Or, to investigate incidents after the fact. Those who carry weapons primarily for self defense, and not to willingly go after a shooter in say a business or a school.

In instructing active shooter and hostage rescue, I have seen and heard of qualified, working street officers who essentially say "if this were real, there is no way I'm going in there. I don't care what is happening, its not my job to get killed for somebody else."

It is no officers job to "get killed" for someone else. It is very much an officer's job - with weapons, training, and body armor that victims of shootings, etc. don't have - to risk their life in an effort to save others. Certainly, any tactical officer must absolutely have this as a core conviction.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:31 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.