Military Martial Art. Really a Martial Art?

[Flatlander]

Sorry about the bold face, I couldn't make it go away.

 

[terryl965]

Well here goes my father was a career military Master Drill Instructor from 1941-1974, and if you tried to tell him that he was not teaching the Art of Judo and Karate along side of the killing aspect he would say you were wrong. The Military use this tpye of fighting for there hand to hand combat, the old school military sent there Master Drill Instructors to some of the very best Asian counter parts for additional training, my father would travel the globe to get training that the military paid for, i know the kill or be kill attitude some will say. I lived with the man I know how he peached about the philosphy of the Art while he was training. I already know some will dis-agree and I can accept there way of thinking, and I know one man views do not speak for the whole military aspect just his own, every man must take from that is tought and conclude there own decissions in life. That what makes America so great. GOD BLESS AMERICA

 

[Kevin Walker]

The U.S. military has created its so called own martial art, marine corp./military martial art. Can it really be considered a martial art? We know the MARTIAL aspect of their martial art is ther but what about the ART aspect that is a piece of martial art that makes Martial Art a whole?

Also in general what do you think of Military Martial Arts?


Tarek

The word 'martial' does mean military. So Military Martial Arts is a tautology, an unnecessary repetition of what has already been said, as in Military Military Arts or Martial Martial Arts. Waging war has always been an art, not a science, the winner has never been precisely predicted as would be in a science.

Don't forget, the Taoist/Buddhist synergy with the eastern martial arts we enjoy today wasn't always there. It was during the Gempei Wars in Japan with the Zen Buddhist warrior monks intervention in that conflict did the samurai come to appreciate Zen Buddhism as a way to enhance their martial, i.e. military, skills. Thus Zen and Buddhist/Taoist philosophy began to be incorporated into the way of the warrior; until the Meiji restoration in 1868 did away with the samurai class and the largest practitioners of Zen Buddhism. Today in Japan, Zen Buddhism is a minority religion being surpassed by Pureland Buddhism and Shinto.

If the USMC want to contribute yet another martial art to the market place, good for them.

 

[loki09789]

1. Many martial arts are spelled with the Chinese character "tao" (道 - read "dou" in Japanese). This isn't a coincidence.

2. One thing that was left out is that both Musashi and Sun Tzu, invincible men in their time, argued *against* the use of force, always citing that physical combat be the final alternative.

3. When you encounter a fighting system that doesn't account for this possibility; that doesn't incorporate the value of things greater than mere survival, then what you have is just another weapon, and not something that deserves the characteristic of "martial art".

1. Correct, these suffixes evolved/philosophies evolved because combative arts were being used as 'tool' for purposes other than warfare. In Japanese arts the suffix "jutsu" tends to be at the end of combative arts and "do" at 'philosophical arts'. INterestingly enough, most of the "do" arts in Japan are really evolutionary empty hand/non samurai arts that came from Okinawa. Most of the current 'trad arts' are really no older than the 19th century or more recent.

2. Sun Tzu had a bet with a Chinese noble that doubted his Leadership/Philosophy of warfare. The bet was to train the nobles concubines to drill and fight as soldiers of the day. ST gave the concubines the instructions/outlines and then gave them the command to execute a basic military movement. When one of the concubines giggled, he lopped her head off...there were no more problems with focus or discipline. So much for your general of peaceful ways....

3. THe USMC 'martial art' is built into an entire system of values, character traits and judicial use of force training. Geneva code, laws of land warfare, Use of force/Deadly force briefings, fire discipline/marksmanship training (partly to avoid collateral damage/casualties), .... the list goes on of 'moral values' included in the personal development/professional training of the American serviceman/woman that is intended to carry into the h2h training.

Someone made the point of h2h as just a tool if it isn't combined with some kind of value system... I totally agree. I would also say that that tool and the value system is gathering rust and going unused if that value system only exists to bolster the individual instead of being used as part of "selfless service."

Commercial martial arts has become a metaphor of what servicemen/women really do regadless of the tools that are being trained.

 

[loki09789]

From Dictionary.com


I think that by this definition, it's difficult for me to imagine that the military martial system is missing the 'art' part. Specifically look at them in the context of points 6 and 7. The art of martial movement. This is an umbrella under which all forms, styles, and types can fit.

The purpose of COMMERCIAL martial arts is to teach the avoidance of violence because otherwise Mom won't keep sending little Johnny or Janie to that school. The focus of 'non violent' martial arts training is to promote good moral character in a venue that only teaches character through a single martial skill set of h2h.

Military applications of martial arts, and honestly I think ALL martial arts are about the judicious and moral/justifiable use of force not the avoidance of all violence. The 'art' aspect may not be apparent to the untrained or unfamiliar with military operations because they are not familiar with the 'art' of tactics and strategy each leader expresses in how he/she employs his force whether it is a firearm, fireteam, tank or unit.... the 'art' in modern warfare isn't in how gracefully a soldier/Marine kicks and punches but how they can get maximum results from minimal effort to reduce the loss of life on both sides.

The goal of modern warfare is not death of troops as much as breaking the back of a nations abililty to make war. That means destroying the industry, harassing main supply routes and destroying the will to fight on a scale that a kicking and punching artist will never comprehend.

as far as philosophy, try this on for size:

http://www.mcu.usmc.mil/mcu/reading/MCOLLS/valguide.htm

 

[OULobo]

I'd just call it advanced combat tactics. Arguing the semantics of martial arts is pointless because there is no right answer. The meaning of art and martial do not necessarily add up to the meaning of martial arts. The connotation that the words inspire in today's society is more important in context, than the definition that was intended years ago. Personally the meaning behind the term martial arts in today's western societies implies an amount of culture and philosophy this is absent in modern military combat tactics.

 

[Eldritch Knight]

Musashi supposedly fought hundreds of duels to the death, seeking out people to fight. That doesn't ring true with arguing against the use of force.

He says in The Book of Five Rings that his victories in his youth were due to perhaps natural ability and not due to true understanding of strategy. He essentially renounces his previous victories and says that the proper way is through the way of strategy, which is the way of peace.

The point is that the original martial arts would have been about killing. Simple as that. You would learn to use a sword to kill an opponent before he could kill you, for example. You wouldn't be training to avoid conflict, but to win in that conflict. To say that all martial arts are about avoiding conflict is to ignore the history of martial arts.

These were perhaps the origins of martial arts, but that was when they were merely fighting systems and not the arts that they have become. From learning how to parry a sword and strike your opponent dead have come strong arguments concerning the movement of the mind and immovability of the soul (Ref: The Unfettered Mind by Takuan Soho). Just as the society's moral structure and culture evolved, so did the fighting systems that they created.

1. Correct, these suffixes evolved/philosophies evolved because combative arts were being used as 'tool' for purposes other than warfare. In Japanese arts the suffix "jutsu" tends to be at the end of combative arts and "do" at 'philosophical arts'. INterestingly enough, most of the "do" arts in Japan are really evolutionary empty hand/non samurai arts that came from Okinawa. Most of the current 'trad arts' are really no older than the 19th century or more recent.

Even though it wasn't called kendo doesn't mean its not kendo! The older ryu arts still emphasized the same oneness of mind, sword, and body as modern kendo does. They may have been referred to as kenjutsu, jujutsu, kyujutsu, etc., but they were still considered refined arts such as tea ceremony and calligraphy.

2. Sun Tzu had a bet with a Chinese noble that doubted his Leadership/Philosophy of warfare. The bet was to train the nobles concubines to drill and fight as soldiers of the day. ST gave the concubines the instructions/outlines and then gave them the command to execute a basic military movement. When one of the concubines giggled, he lopped her head off...there were no more problems with focus or discipline. So much for your general of peaceful ways....

Chapter Three of The Art of War states the following:
"The general rule for use of the military is that it is better to keep a nation intact than to destroy it. It is better to keep an army intact than to destroy it, ... , better to keep a unit intact than to destroy it". Li Quan (a genius at strategy, BTW) followed this by commenting "This means that killing is not the important thing". The one fallacy that I can see in your argument is that ST did not see the concubines as human. He saw them as any ancient Chinese general was apt to see them: as an army. He realized that he could either spend hours trying to discipline them against their nature and probably end up with a bunch of tired women, or could eliminate a weak link in his army and thereby make the entire chain strong. He didn't do this out of a will to be violent, but as a further realization to the "tao" line of thought that he was bettering the whole. He clearly states that if war can be avoided, avoid it, but if it can't be avoided, then fight it with everything you have.


What I'm saying is that while the fighting systems of the military are effective and may incorporate elements of the fighting systems of karate, judo, and other arts, they don't incorporate the "tao" and thus the mindset and viewpoint that defines a martial art.

 

[loki09789]

What I'm saying is that while the fighting systems of the military are effective and may incorporate elements of the fighting systems of karate, judo, and other arts, they don't incorporate the "tao" and thus the mindset and viewpoint that defines a martial art.

In reference to the older 'ways' the Ryu generally are Okinawan originally loaded with tons of "fight off the samurai occupiers" goals/intent along with more 'felial piety' than 'Do' stuff that was only being passed on by the floor training. It was in the culture. It was NOT Samurai arts.

Even the "jutsu" arts usually associated with Samurai type arts became more ceremonial and 'do'-ish as the Japanese Shogun instituted peace made combative training more a requirement of rank/status than battelfield skill. Samurai, after the unification of Japan became pretty much politicians. They maintained/perpetuated the lifestyle (including the fighting arts) and made every detail siginificant during an age of extreme peace. The code of Bushido was originally written after YEARS of peaceful life for the samurai. The art and the philosophies that you aspouse were more idealizations by philosophical, well trained artists who had no enemies to fight but wanted to maintain the honor of a warrior class. Thus the introduction of Do-ish practices. I am pretty sure that early Japanese/Samurai arts were closer to FMA/modern military arts when the enemy could be storming the gates that night or in the next season. Lots of fundamental drilling, tons of effective application and a serious lack of interest in fancy/overtechnical development as an expression of further athletic/personal dedication. The battlefield was calling too often.

Besides which, the spear, sword and bow were the primary battlefield weapons. Much like the emphasis on firearms and supporting arms in the current day, I would guess logically that the h2h training was very basic but very effective if the training focused on making sure that those 'basics' could be done with focus and fighting will. Not to mention that the 'philosophical' correlation was infused into how the individual conducted themselves and evolved regardless of the tool. That is the true indicator of a philosophy - not it's hard wiring to one specific technical system but how it infuses and applies to all things. A modern soldier is trained in the values/philosophy of the branch and country and how to conduct/percieve themselves regardless of whether they are on the battlefield, at PT, on the rifle range, in h2h training or just cooking meals for thousands of hungry troops.

Attention to detail, personal excellence, pride in a job well done, selflessness, mission accomplishment over personal comfort....

Sounds a lot like "focus", "living in the present" and "egoless effort" which are common terms/ideas of commercial/eastern martial arts school talk.

"It it a hard heart that kills" and "work smart not hard" sound reasonably similar to the martial arts jargon of "focused mind" and "economy of motion" - just in western terms.

Just because there isn't a 'personal enlightenment' philosophy attached to an art doesn't mean that the thing like the Marine Corps values/Army values are not philosophically valid or sound. They are just different.

I am interested in how the general 'anti art' reaction to current miltary arts seem to be based on a lack of 'philosophy' when there is so much pride in those professional martial artists living and dieing for a philosophy of espirit de Corps, loyalty and honoring an oath to the point of making 'the ultimate sacrifice' going on right now. Please take the time to read the link to the Marine Corps values documents. Philosophies exist in western culture too.

 

[arnisador]

We need a way to distinguish truly martial arts from what so many people study nowadays--self-defense arts. It's true that martial means relating to the military, but "martial arts" as used today encompasses rather more. (Then there's "martial sports" or "combative sports" as well.) It's a big difference--are you training to be able to kill, or to be able to control (as in law enforcement), or to be able to survive (self-defense)?

 

[loki09789]

Chapter Three of The Art of War states the following:
"The general rule for use of the military is that it is better to keep a nation intact than to destroy it. It is better to keep an army intact than to destroy it, ... , better to keep a unit intact than to destroy it". Li Quan (a genius at strategy, BTW) followed this by commenting "This means that killing is not the important thing". The one fallacy that I can see in your argument is that ST did not see the concubines as human. He saw them as any ancient Chinese general was apt to see them: as an army. He realized that he could either spend hours trying to discipline them against their nature and probably end up with a bunch of tired women, or could eliminate a weak link in his army and thereby make the entire chain strong. He didn't do this out of a will to be violent, but as a further realization to the "tao" line of thought that he was bettering the whole. He clearly states that if war can be avoided, avoid it, but if it can't be avoided, then fight it with everything you have..

And he still lopped off a poor girls head for nothing more than winning a bet and protecting his reputation/status. ST was a general not a philosopher. The publication that we all get in our own languages as The Art of War is not philosophy as much as doctrinal. It is put on the shelf next to Clauswitz and other military 'artists'/strategists/tacticians. Too many orientaphiles tend to lump it in with philosophical/theological works like the Tao Te Ching, which was intended as a life way study which, in it's own right, could be applied to warfare (as it has in Tai Ji) but was not originally intended for warfare as ST's art of war was.

 

[loki09789]

We need a way to distinguish truly martial arts from what so many people study nowadays--self-defense arts. It's true that martial means relating to the military, but "martial arts" as used today encompasses rather more. (Then there's "martial sports" or "combative sports" as well.) It's a big difference--are you training to be able to kill, or to be able to control (as in law enforcement), or to be able to survive (self-defense)?

All of those things you are describing are intents and goals specified by the need of the user that equate to survival/success. Again, the military trains for mission success not just killing. Actually one of the prime movers for the development of the USMC martial art was the amount of low intensity/peace keeping missions that would call for more less than lethal respones than a full blown battlefield would require. The USMC martial art has locks/controls in it to answer that need and more lethal/impact techniques that will buy you time until you can get back to the shooting.

In LEO or self defense situations lethal force may be necessary and is part of the skill set of training. It is all martial arts to me. The packaging of how/why you practice is what dictates what skills/training is needed to be 'mission successful'.

I think there is already too much pidgeon holing about genre/venue/event....

It is all martial arts because it is all systematic training/education that instills self control/bearing/values along with the means to respond/initiate to make those values a reality in a wide range of resonses, up to and including violent/lethal action.

It is all martial arts, just different goals/needs/intent////

 

[Flatlander]

Some of you were referencing specifically USMC h2h, others were more generally discussing military martial art, but nobody has defined either for me here, and I've never been military, so I don't know.

I have a question here. Would we consider Modern Arnis a Martial Art? It most certainly incorporates "Tao" into its structure, yet is taught to special forces. Does this fall within the realm of Military arts? Or is this a completely different issue?

Just so you know, I will not take offence if anyone declares that Modern Arnis Combatives training does not fall within the realm of Martial Arts.

 

[loki09789]

Some of you were referencing specifically USMC h2h, others were more generally discussing military martial art, but nobody has defined either for me here, and I've never been military, so I don't know.

I have a question here. Would we consider Modern Arnis a Martial Art? It most certainly incorporates "Tao" into its structure, yet is taught to special forces. Does this fall within the realm of Military arts? Or is this a completely different issue?

Just so you know, I will not take offence if anyone declares that Modern Arnis Combatives training does not fall within the realm of Martial Arts.

I have to differ on this one, Flat, in reference to MA as a "Tao" or Do art. Remy Presas promoted, instructed and published Modern Arnis as a self defense art. Other than basic decency and courtesy established by his PI culture, which is a mix of regional/ethic/religious (predominately Catholic or Muslim), there isn't much/any philosophy that isn't directly linked to artistic/fighting improvement.

But, that said, our shared background in MA and other FMA's that are accepted in the 'pantheon of true martial arts' do not come from that Eastern Buddhist/Zen/Tao culture gives us a different prespective on what is "martial arts" and what is not. I would definitely consider FMA's and Modern Arnis as true arts, but then I too consider a tactical firearms program a 'martial arts' program as well. Why? Because it not only instills physical skill but does it within a legal/moral/responsibility philosophy that guides the tactical decisions of how/when/why and where to use that training responsibly. I wouldn't call it a "Do" art or a religious/philosophical/personal enlightenment art but it is does fit under the heading of "martial arts" IMO.

 

[Flatlander]

That's OK, Paul. My take on the nature of Tao is that "the flow" represents those principles 'martially' quite well. It was in this context that I was drawing a correlation.

It's a difficult concept to capture with words, but I am alluding to the movement/energy/no-mind/mindfullness/yielding/blending/filling the void aspects of the art, or any for that matter. It is on this level that I see the expression of the art, and I think that these principles trancend various styles and methods of training. Just pure combative essence as truth.

Still with me?

 

[kik]

Re: Military Martial Art. Really a Martial Art?

I agree with all the ones who are saying that martial art consists of physical force and all that kind of stuff...

But..


In order to have Yin and Yang you need both Yin and Yang

In order to have Martial Art you need both Martial and Art

In my opinion I think Military Martial Arts is missing the ART aspect and focusing mainly on the MARTIAL aspect.

Like I said in order to have a whole you need two of the halfes.

Tarek

I really don't think our military cares if you consider it the training our soldiers are recieving as martial arts whole or half. The main objective is to train our men and women well enough in the art of hand to hand combat so they can come back home and live long lives with they're families.
While We sit in our nice safe dojangs and learn how to break pine and clay our men and women have to be prepared to snap bone and sometimes even snap to the point of death. there are not to many civilians out here that would be able to go that far.
When I was training in the military my instructors taught a varitity of arts so we could be well rounded and be able to adapt. we learned TKD Judo Grappling and Akido. I have been out for 15 yrs now so it may be different I dont know.

Take it for what it's worth, not trying to start any trouble.

Kik

 

[loki09789]

That's OK, Paul. My take on the nature of Tao is that "the flow" represents those principles 'martially' quite well. It was in this context that I was drawing a correlation.

It's a difficult concept to capture with words, but I am alluding to the movement/energy/no-mind/mindfullness/yielding/blending/filling the void aspects of the art, or any for that matter. It is on this level that I see the expression of the art, and I think that these principles trancend various styles and methods of training. Just pure combative essence as truth.

Still with me?

It is really funny you mention MA 'flow' concept because I was flipping through my copy of the yellow book and was keying in on that. I would say that it is possible to take that trancendancy further into development of the 'self' aspects and kick MA up a notch to be on par with the Zen/Tao arts by saying that 'the flow' is the by product of sound 'weaving/siniwali' of interpersonal skills and good communication......

I see where you came from better ( I think you are referring the 'martial artistry' of Modern Arnis in this 'flow' sensitivity and not the 'glow/enlightenment' stuff of more philosophically based arts....I think )

Someday when I am done with my grad work to keep my teaching license, I will sit down and expand the 'concepts' of MA into 'philosophy for life' and create a whole 'life concept' based on those principles....

Seriously though, I think people can take these concepts higher/larger than just fighitng concepts if they want to and it might be neat to see how it compares to other eastern philosophies.

 

[loki09789]

I really don't think our military cares if you consider it the training our soldiers are recieving as martial arts whole or half. The main objective is to train our men and women well enough in the art of hand to hand combat so they can come back home and live long lives with they're families.
While We sit in our nice safe dojangs and learn how to break pine and clay our men and women have to be prepared to snap bone and sometimes even snap to the point of death. there are not to many civilians out here that would be able to go that far.
When I was training in the military my instructors taught a varitity of arts so we could be well rounded and be able to adapt. we learned TKD Judo Grappling and Akido. I have been out for 15 yrs now so it may be different I dont know.

Take it for what it's worth, not trying to start any trouble.

Kik

High five from the loki camp....well rounded is a good way to put it.

 

[Eldritch Knight]

Well said, kik. I fully agree.

 

[Tgace]

Theres as much "art" in strategy, tactics, firearms skills, navigation, call for fire yadda yadda as there is in h2h fighting. Its "the way" thats important, not specific skills.

 

[Littledragon]

My conclusion to is Military Martial Art really a Martial Art is leaning toward this.

Combat and physical force is apart of Martial Arts which is correct. For the people who are only referring to the physical aspects and say it is a martial art, they are forgetting they are only seeing the Martial aspect of Martial Art. If martial arts was just based on physical force than it would merley be called just Martial. But it is called Martial ART so one must, must acknowledge the ART aspect of martial arts. I think Military Martial Art can be called hand to hand combat but not Martial Arts. I still don't see the ART aspect of the military form of fighting. I can agree with the people who say military martial arts is just physical force because thats all I see, I don't see any tradtion, philosophy, and spirituality. A quote from Hapkido Grandmaster Bong Soo Han: without philosphy and "ART" all the techniques in Martial Arts would be meaningless and just be a street fighting. What makes Martial Arts so important is the ART side, everything must be balanced and the ART aspect is what keeps that balance. ART of Martial Arts is the spiritual aspect and for the people who believe in God know that spirituality is one of the strongest source of power.
In conclusion I believe Military Martial Arts is just developed for combat and war which Martial Arts emphasizes not to do, if one can stop a fight or violence from happening that is the true mastery of Martial Art. I don't see the ART aspect in military martial art so I can merley just call it Martial Combat not Martial Art.

Tarek