…for a guy to learn good information and say that the woman giving it is attractive?
January 24, 2012
is it really so wrong…
Posted by tgace under skills, weapons | Tags: weapon skills, weapon training |[6] Comments
January 20, 2012
specialization is for insects
Posted by tgace under quotes, skills | Tags: opinion, quotation, skills, training |[63] Comments
Image via Wikipedia
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
-Robert A. Heinlein
January 19, 2012
there’s no peeing in the war room
Posted by tgace under code of conduct, military | Tags: code of conduct, military, mindset, opinion |[10] Comments
I would think that you would probably have to be living in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan to not have heard about, or seen the video of, a group of Marines urinating on some Taliban corpses.
Personally, I’m a tad ambivalent about the whole thing.
Definition of AMBIVALENCE
1: simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings (as attraction and repulsion) toward an object, person, or action
2 a : continual fluctuation (as between one thing and its opposite) b : uncertainty as to which approach to follow
On one side: It’s entirely unprofessional. It’s arguably “desecration” in a legal sense, but a far cry from say; cutting off body parts, burning them, hanging them from bridges or putting heads on pikes. It has resulted in a political and media firestorm and it will probably end in a Court Martial just to appease the political and media gods.
On the other side: Yeah, these guys did something wrong; but something not exactly unheard of in the annals of War, and in the scope of military history something somewhat tame. While it is something we shouldn’t condone, the hue and cry for these Marines heads on pikes by the media (and youtube/facebook crowd of “never been there’s…never will’s”) falls somewhat flat on me.
On one side of the media coin a “former soldier” who goes on a killing spree back home is a poor victim of PTSD; while on the other side, these Marines who are STILL IN COMBAT are given the evil villan treatment. If it bleeds or pees it leads I guess.
IMO this should result in a Company Grade Article 15 (maybe a Field Grade for the stupidity of taping/allowing themselves to be taped and publicizing it) for the people involved.
On yet another side: Nobody seems to care about the whole process of what made these bodies, well, bodies in the first place. It’s like someone saying:
Hmmm, look dead bodies - OH MY GOD THEY ARE PEEING ON THEM!!!
The “outrage” seems strangely misplaced.
A good post to read can be found over on The Silver Tongue Blog. The author there says:
Note that no one, on either side (that Times article I linked to above contains quotes from Afghanis that I’ve omitted for brevity’s sake) seems to view the creating of the bodies as in any way problematic. It’s the peeing that’s the problem. Now, again, without downgrading the severity of the actions of the Marines in the video, I just want to throw it out there and say that if someone were to shoot me and then pee on my corpse, the peeing wouldn’t really be my biggest beef. It’s not like my dying thought after being shot would be “I hope they don’t pee on me after this.”
What I’m getting at is that upholding standards and values that create bodies but mandate particular treatment of them afterwards maintains the idea of war as a gentleman’s game, something engaged in with a degree of civility and mutual respect. I’m not saying that war should just be some free-for-all where people can pee on whatever corpses they want all willy nilly or whatever, and I’m not even saying that outrage at said peeing is misplaced in any way. I’m also not attempting to put down everyone who did a tour in any of our like jillion wars over there and peed only where they were supposed to. I’m just saying that the state of being “at war” with someone is an ugly business to begin with, and that upon some reflection I’ve considered that maybe our collective outrage over this isn’t really about who did what to whose corpses, but maybe over being confronted with the grim reality of those corpses in the first place, and our disappointment over the horrible things people can be driven to do when they can’t handle the pressure of being forced to create a corpse or become one.
….which kind of nicely encapsulates my opinion on the matter too.
In the end what really worries me is the nonchalance about being videotaped and the lack of common sense and good judgement involved in putting it on the internet.
If after a brutal firefight a group of Marines urinate on some corpses as a cathartic and nobody but them knows about it (how would anybody else know? Its not like urine on the body would even be noticed by anybody shortly thereafter)…I wouldn’t loose too much sleep about THAT. Sure it’s still wrong and a Gunny should kick some ass if he sees it, but TAPING it and putting it on the internet? Nobody thought THAT was a bad idea? That worries me.
January 13, 2012
Rory Miller put up the following post on his blog a few years ago:
http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2009/04/warriordom.html
A warrior is someone who makes war for a living. Period. It’s not some autonomous, independent, noble killing machine, some reborn knight or paragon. It is someone who is paid money to make big problems go away, often in a messy fashion.
Never been in a war? Not a warrior. Get over it.I know that there is a myth and an industry building up around the ‘warrior identity’ but there are parts of it that I really don’t get. ”Warriors” I am told, follow their own hearts. Whatever. Real warriors follow orders. Know what you call a bunch of individuals on a battlefield? Meat. They have the humility and the basic intelligence to know that other people have more information and trust the people with that information to make those decisions.…
Read the rest, but that quote sums up his opinion, I posted the following comment in reply.
Depends on the society and culture we are discussing.
In ancient Japan (and in other societies) a “Warrior” was what you were were born as (vs a Farmer, Artisan or merchant).
I have no issues with some professions using the word as a motivational term to inspire their members to a higher level of training and/or performance.
If a cop considers himself a “warrior” who protects society from criminals and the mindset drives him to workout, shoot, take martial arts classes, study law, etc…GREAT!
On the other hand if a person is only using the term as an ego gratifier and thinks that he/she is somehow a better person than someone else that’s an issue with the individual, not the term.
I think that the word is vastly overused by people who never have to put their ass on the line for it (in service to others). A soldier, LEO, Firefighter, etc using the term? Fine. A hobby martial artist, sport fighter or gun class Rambo? That’s another story.
As a number of my posts have dealt with this same issue I thought it appropriate to mention Rory’s post here. Back in November of 2009 I wrote this:
http://tgace.com/2009/11/15/defining-terms/
Alright, I have a moment to type.
It would be a fairly accurate statement to say that when I created this blog it was with the intention of coalescing my thoughts about, and refining my definition of, “Warriorship”.
While “Warriorship” is closely associated with the word “Warrior”, I am starting to come to the conclusion that they may have become two separate but closely related issues; perhaps too closely related. While one can be quantifiable, the other has become so nebulous that people training in what I define as “Wariorship” have come to believe that doing so makes them “Warriors” which I don’t believe is the case.
I am currently of the opinion that the term “Warrior”, as in “I am a Warrior”, is currently overused and misapplied. In my worldview, a “warrior” is a person who fights for their country, lord or master, or is at least a dedicated professional in a field of arms. Professional military personnel fit my definition, with the special operators on one end of the continuum and more mundane MOS personnel at the other. I would also include Law Enforcement Officers as existing on the outside fringe of possible inclusion. Currently the term is being applied to a wide range of people; athletes, new ager’s, martial artists, gun enthusiasts and the terminally Ill to name a few. Not to disparage any of these people, but while they may behave with the virtues of a warrior, or be training in the skills of a “Warrior”, defining yourself as a Warrior impresses me aWalter Mitty-ish fantasy. Harmless in most cases, admittedly, but with some disturbing exceptions as in the case discussed elsewhere in this blog.
“Warriorship” is a concept that doesn’t even have one accepted definition. While the O.E.D. defines it as “1The craft or skill of military arts and science, see ‘warrior , most attempts to find a definition lead you to Carlos Castenada; Cogyam Trungpa and his Shambala philosophy, Joseph Campbell, Ninjutsu practitioners, New Age Druids,Native American culture and Bushido. While sharing some characteristics, there is no common definition between them.
So I guess Im going to add my definition to the mix. I define Warriorship as:
Warriorship
( War-ri-or-ship ) n. [OE. werreour, OF. werreour, guerreor, from guerre, werre, war. See War]1. A state in which a person is training in the skills and traits possessed by those of the Warrior profession.
2. A philosophy based on the positive character and social traits of persons in the warrior profession.
At least thats my first hack at it. Any opinions or assistance in refining it will be appreciated.
I suppose that by my definition a person can be participating in “warriorship” if they are approaching training and life as more than a mere “hobbyist”. Someone going to amartial arts class two times a week isn’t participating. Someone who buys a handgun and wears 5.11 “operator clothes” and tactical boots isn’t participating. Just reading books and playing paintball isn’t enough.
Someone who looks at the entirety of life as “training in warriorship”, learning, mastering and incorporating into their personal lifestyle skills as varied as combat techniques; navigation, medicine, climbing/rappelling, driving, swimming, SCUBA, physical conditioning and countless others MAY be meeting my definition. However, my personal twist would include some sort of service to society, putting those skills to use.
The hazard lies in the ease by which a person practicing Warriorship as a lifestyle can fall into believing that they are the equivalent of a Warrior. I believe that many people who begin the pursuit in the first place are doing one hoping to become the other.
more to come later…..
The comments section on that post blossomed into an interesting discussion on this topic and if this interests you it would be worth your while to read it. In a nutshell, while I do not entirely disagree with Rory’s opinion here (and I have posted things similar), I also believe that the term is not as simple to pigeonhole as he thinks.
January 5, 2012
how much is good enough?
Posted by tgace under martial arts, military, self defense, skills, tactics, warriorship | Tags: warriorship |1 Comment
In light of my recent post “what exactly do you think you are doing”, I thought that moving up this post from last year would add yet another professionals opinion on the issue of training priorities.
Former SEAL and “Tactical Impact” star Kyle Defoor has a blog going. Go check it out.
I especially like the post Training Balance and How Good is Good Enough?
The first thing you need to do clearly identify your needs of training FOR THE REAL WORLD, such as; carbine, pistol, blade, combatives, physical fitness, tactics. Once you’ve made a list of the what, honestly ask yourself what you really NEED the most and which one you just LIKE to do. Here lies the problem. We (humans) like to practice what we’re good at, and what makes us feel good. Over time this is a recipe for disaster.
Kyle has a lot of good stuff; rifle painting, controlling fear, repairing EoTechs…take a look.
January 2, 2012
what exactly do you think you are doing?
Posted by tgace under self defense, skills, weapons | Tags: opinion, self defense, self-development, training, weapon training |[9] Comments
- Image via Wikipedia
A theme that keeps popping up in discussion with my like minded friends revolves around the issue of firearms training and it’s sometimes over-emphasized place in (some) peoples lives.
While “overtraining” in weapon skills is obviously NOT a problem in comparison to all of the people who are undertrained, and constant practice IS important; it’s also important to realize that there are MANY other skills that are as or even more important than being able to doubletap a target while on the move.
The author of Vuurwapen Blog has recently posted an interesting piece about this, he says:
However, pistol and carbine training courses – and shotgun courses, and precision rifle courses etc. – are all essentially based on, or grew from the concept of, providing law enforcement and military personnel with a greater ability to use their issued weapons. What we see now in the firearms community are essentially the same courses marketed to civilian shooters, perhaps with some limitations or restrictions. This is all well and good, but there is a major disconnect between the skills of a civilian shooter who has attended many carbine and pistol training courses and the skills of a Marine infantryman who has never attended training outside that which is provided by the military.
It is almost a foregone conclusion that the civilian shooter would be more proficient with the rifle/carbine and the pistol, at least within 50 to 100 yards. However, the Marine possesses skills that would make him much more valuable to an infantry unit, and, I daresay, more valuable in a firefight. Unfortunately, the skills that make him so valuable are not cool enough to draw dozens of paying clients.
Some – certainly not all – civilian training centers draw students by telling them how after only a few days of training, they will become as good a shooter as “a SWAT cop or a Navy SEAL.” Yes, Front Sight, I’m looking at you. Even when this is not stated outright, it is implied – most often not by the instructors, but by the students. For some people who have never been in the military, and are seeking a little excitement, putting on all the gear and getting on line to practice shooting drills is a really fun way to spend a weekend. I certainly don’t wish to put down what they have chosen to do too much, for as I said above, anyone who wants to own an AR-15 should know how to use it. However, while there is a massive jump in skills and proficiency after the first few training courses, the 5th, 10th, or 15th course is of relatively little value.
Amen.
He’s saying exactly what I always say in reply to the “many cops are crappy shooters” cannard that pops up in many shooting related discussions. Yes, some (perhaps even too many) are, but do you know what skill they should spend even more time working on? Driving. And after that? Unarmed defensive tactics.
Sure you may be a better shot than a Marine , but can you land nav to an ambush site and lay an ambush? Can you call in artillery? Do you know combat first aid and tactical radio communications? Nobody is saying that shooting isn’t of vital importance, but once you have that skill checked off and you have a maintainance plan to preserve what you have learned, don’t stay in a rut.
For the “civilian” who wants to be prepared? Is there really any more skill improvement that they need past the 3rd or 4th training course? Not that there is anything wrong with participating in classes simply because it’s fun and its “your money”, but in terms of useful skills how about getting some first aid training instead of dropping 2-5K on another trip to Front Sight? Or maybe take up running or some sort of fitness training. THAT will pay off far more in the long run of your life than another weekend burning through a case of .223.
PS- The same goes for YOU, my martial arts class taking “warriors” out there. One or Two classes a week at the local dojo does not a “warrior” make. How many $200-$300 seminars do you REALLY need to take?
If you are doing it as a hobby or simply because you enjoy it (so go @!$% yourself Tgace) that 100% A-OK with me. But make your decisions in full awareness.
December 31, 2011
I’m in the process of setting up a new vest/plate carrier and part of it includes assembling a “blow out” or first aid kit. One of the first components I have received is an “Israeli Bandage”.
Developed by a former IDF combat medic named Bernard Nar-Natan, and brought to the market in 1998, these bandages are a leap from the old fabric bandages the Army issued to soldiers back when I went through basic training.
December 30, 2011
Cover via Amazon
I’m currently in the last third of Steven Pressfield’s The Virtues of War, which tells the story of Alexander the Great’s campaigns across Persia from the first-person perspective of Alexander himself.
I’ve written about Pressfield before and first became aware of him when I read The Gates of Fire, the historical fiction retelling of the Spartan stand against the Persians at Thermopylae. Pressfield, a former US Marine, has become sort of an authority on classic military history, the warrior, and leadership on the battlefield. His books routinely address the role of the leader, the human dynamic on the battlefield and what it is about combat that has captivated humans..mainly men..throughout our history. Since I’m reading it on a Kindle, I have been highlighting passages I find interesting with the intent of discussing some of them here. For example…
On decision making:
How is one to command? By consensus of his subordinates? Listen indeed. Weigh and evaluate. Then decide yourself. Are you stumped at the crossroads? Pick one way and don’t look back. Nothing is worse than indecision. Be wrong, but be wrong decisively. Can you please your constituents? never let me hear that word! The men are never happy with anything. The march is always too long, the ways too rough. What works with them? Hardship. Give your men something that can’t be done, not something that can. Then place yourself at first hazard.
…
This sentiment is nothing new and I have heard/read similar in various places. I have to say that while I agree with it in general ( it IS the leaders job to make decisions), there are varying degrees of “damn the torpedoes full speed ahead!!” leadership.
I understand that in the context of the book the decisions mentioned are battlefield decisions. The question is “How is one to COMMAND?” When lives are at stake and you are the leader, yes, indecision kills.
But to take the lesson from the war-room to the board-room, so to speak, the spirit of the passage, while still important, can be taken too far and turn you into a little Napoleon. Not every decision has to be a “Because I’m in charge and I say so” affair. As anyone who has ever experienced a Second Lieutenant fresh out of ROTC can attest to, the pressures of leadership combined with inexperience can lead to interesting situations with the senior NCO’s who posses the experience but not the rank.
Personally, being in a leadership/supervisory role, I sometimes ask myself if I am being decisive enough, is this a situation where I need to take COMMAND, or would doing so only be because I feel like I should SHOW that I’m in charge vs actually accomplishing a goal? Sometimes the inner talk, self-expectations and wondering what others think are a greater leadership burden than the actual requirements of the job.
I think that the nack lies in knowing your mission first and foremost and doing what’s required to see that its accomplished. Sometimes that means knowing the difference between the decisions that need to be made immediately (take that pillbox or pass it?) and those that you can table and think over for a while.
December 26, 2011
an oath
Posted by tgace under code of conduct, philosophy | Tags: code of conduct, faith, mindset, philosophy, warriorship |1 Comment
Image via Wikipedia
“And this was the covenant of their Knighthood of the Round Table:
That they would be gentle unto the weak; that they would be courageous unto the strong; that they would be terrible unto the wicked and the evil-doer; that they would defend the helpless who should call upon them for aid; that all women should be held unto them sacred; that they would stand unto the defence of one another whensoever such defence should be required; that they would be merciful unto all men; that they would be gentle of deed, true in friendship, and faithful in love.
This was their covenant, and unto it each knight sware upon the cross of his sword, and in witness thereof did kiss the hilt thereof.”
- Howard Pyle; ”King Arthur and the knights of The Round Table”
December 21, 2011
on my holiday wish list…
Posted by tgace under equipment, weapons | Tags: equipment, gear, weapon training |Leave a Comment
I may very well be getting one of these after the holiday’s when I get one of my checks from work.
The folks over at TacStrike make some nice steel target systems. I’ve been itching to put up some permanent targets instead of hauling them in and out every time I go shooting.
Maybe you will catch some video of me shooting one up of these soon.
