The Reactionary Zone Part 4

Reactionary Zones Part Four: The Closest Distance

Welcome to Worst-Case Scenario Land, Population: You.

by Shelley Hill  February 5, 2024

In the past three months; Shooting Illustrated has published three articles focusing on the Four Reactionary Zones.

Part 1 focused on the “Most” amount of time to react, act and respond to a threat. The Most distance is around 25 feet and beyond. We often say that “distance equals time” so this zone gives us the most distance or time, to make a really good first decision.

Part 2 focused on “Some” amount of time to react, act and respond to a threat. We consider 12-25 feet the Somezone. I personally think this is the hardest zone to manage because at 25 feet, you can usually just move with purpose to avoid a threat but as the threat moves closer to you, your decision to avoid needs to be made rather quickly.

Part 3 focused on the “Least” amount of time to react, act and respond to a threat. The Complete Combatant thinks of this zone ranging from 6-12 feet and in this zone, you have “just enough time” to make good first decisions if you are ready for the fight. If you have trained and practiced self preservation options, tool cycling and have pre-made decisions in place then you could be one step ahead of that bad dude.

Now it is time to talk about the final Reactionary Zone, “No” time. Talking about the facts encompassing the “No” time to react, act and respond zone can be very upsetting to some people. It is hard to comprehend that you don’t have time to understand what is happening, make a decision, act on the decision and fully respond to that decision, before the bad guy acts.

When The Supper Club Turns Into Fight Club

Scenario: You are in a fast food restaurant, you have received your food, and you are now looking for a small table to eat your lunch. You find the perfect spot, and right before you set down your tray, a man appears six feet from you. He says nothing but he is obviously angry, he is sweating, red faced, clenched jaw, tight fists, and is staring a hole through you. You are his target and violence is imminent: What do you do?

Before we go any further, let’s give some credit to EdwardHall, Edward is a cultural anthropologist that specialized in proxemics that are maintained by healthy, adult, middle-class Americans.

There are several “aspects” of proxemics. The one that Hall writes about is the distance maintained between people when they are communicating. Hall named his four distances: public, social, personal and intimate. We have named ours “Most amount of time to react,” “Some amount of time to react,” “Least amount of time to react” and “No amount of time to react.” In Reactionary Zones Part 4, we will be focusing on The Complete Combatant’s “No time to react” distance.

Per Hall, intimate distance is direct contact. This zone is very easy to explain. You can consider touching, hugging, comforting, football, wrestling and protecting all in this zone. Notice that Hall said “protecting.”

Because of Hall's framework, we know people can feel the pressure of whether that person belongs in a specific zone/space/distance.  In self-protection management, we can use his research to our advantage by measuring the violence options available to the bad person while measuring the options available to us to react, act and then respond. 

No Time To Lose

Now let’s switch gears from normal healthy adults, to criminals. The No choice Reactionary Zone, which is 6 feet and under from you to the bad guy and gives you no time to react. Not the most, not some, not the least, but no time. 

Let’s go over some important things to consider in the No time zone. As always, you want to make one good first decision and then immediately follow up with more good decisions.

First of all, I am not telling you not to react. I am explaining that in this zone there is no time to decipher body language, judge the distance, think about how you want to react, formulate an actual plan and then respond to it when the bad dude coming at you from 6 feet or less.

We call this distance the No choice zone because if they chose violence, you have no choice but to respond, and it will mostly likely be with a “hands on” aka “force on force” action because of the time restraints aka short distance.

• You have no choice but to “manage” him with words, and actions.
• Contextually, he has no right to be there. You are in danger, and this is a threat.
• With all the other thoughts filling our brain, we will not have time to accurately measure distance, which in turn, will measure the time available for us to react, act and respond.
• This is full-action time if the fight is upon us.
• Can you act first? If he is physical first, you may not get a turn to defend yourself.
• Do you have any past force on force training? Do you currently train in ground fighting like jiu jitsu? Now is the time to apply those skills.
• No training? Don’t worry, you will “learn on the job”. Never stop fighting. Never give up.

We have to look at ourselves and ask how did he get this close? Maybe we did not visually manage the space in the Most, Some or Least amount of time Reactionary Zones or we were attacked from behind or ambushed. Your goal is to earn the space to run away or to get to a “tool” to use so you can stop him from doing what he is doing.

Now back to the scenario. You set down your tray and, all of the sudden, a man appears six feet from you. He says nothing but he is obviously angry. He is sweating and red faced, with a clenched jaw and tight fists and is staring a hole through you. You are his target, and violence is imminent.

Thank goodness you understand that he is under the length of a twin mattress from you, you know that the average stride is 3 feet and that he can cover the distance to you in about half a second. He steps into you and swings at you, but, while screaming, you manage to swing your food tray with all your might and smack him hard in the side of the head. Food goes flying! He was NOT expecting that, so he steps back to regroup. You just bought yourself a bit of time so you step to the side and put the little table between you. These two explosive decisions buys you a bit more time to make more good decisions. He can no longer reach you easily; time is not in his side, so he takes off. You see, he was wrong; you were not an easy target. He was looking to score some cash with little effort from himself, and from you. You made his decision to assault you a bad one, so he has left you to look for another person that may be easier to assault and rob.

You now can take a deep breath. Please consider watching him run away. Which direction does he run? Does he get in a car? What is he is wearing? Now call 911, give them your location and give them as many correct details as you can. Let’s get this guy off the streets.

 

 

 

The Reactionary Zone Part 3

 

Reactionary Zones Part Three: Close Range Encounters

What to do when it's the wrong time to get up close and personal.

by Shelley Hill

In the past two months, Shooting Illustrated has published 2 articles focusing on understanding concept of Reactionary Zones.

Part 1 focused on the “MOST” amount of time to react, act and respond to a threat. The MOST distance is around 25 feet and beyond. We often say that “distance equals time” so this zone gives us the MOST distance or time, to make a really good first decision.

Part 2  focused on “SOME” amount of time to react, act and respond to a threat. We consider 12-25 feet the SOME zone. I personally think this is the hardest zone to manage because at 25 feet you can usually just move with purpose to avoid a threat but as the threat moves closer to you, your decision to avoid needs to be made pretty quickly.

Today is Part 3, which focuses on the last Reactionary Zone that truly gives you enough time to process what you are seeing, make a decision and then move into action to respond.

Scenario: It is a crisp January night, you have just had an outstanding dinner with some friends and it is now time to say goodbye. Everyone is getting bundled up, farewell hugs are given and everyone is extending well wishes as a new year begins. Everyone is parked in different areas of the lot but the parking area is still full of cars and it is very well lit so you are a bit careless. Just as you reach your vehicle, an apparent unarmed man jumps out from behind one of the cars that is parked close to you, aggressively asks for money and starts working his way toward you. What do you do?

When it comes to the concept of reactionary zones, there were many brilliant people that played a part. Edward T. Hall, was a large influence to me because of his research on the natural distance maintained between people when communicating.

Edward T. Hall is a cultural anthropologist who specialized in proxemics that are maintained by healthy, adult, middle-class Americans. He wrote a book called The Hidden Dimension that explains “proxemics” and the difference in “distance awareness” among many cultural groups.

There are several “aspects” of proxemics. The one that Hall writes about is the distance maintained between people when they are communicating. Hall named his four distances “Public,” “Social,” “Personal” and “Intimate.” The Complete Combatant has named those four Reactionary Zones “Most amount of time to react,” “Some amount of time to react,” “Least amount of time to react” and “No amount of time to react.” In Reactionary Zones Part 3, we will be focusing on The Complete Combatant’s “Least amount of time to react” distance. 

Per Hall, “personal” distance ranges from 1 foot to 4 feet. He considers this distance zone as long as arm’s length and explains how the subjects of personal interest can be discussed while physical contact, such as holding hands. It is also interesting to note that Hall did not spend large amounts of time talking about violence options in proxemics, but he does mention that topic in this zone, when you are close enough to hit another person in the nose.

Because of Hall's framework, we know people can feel the pressure of whether that person belongs in a specific zone/space/distance. In self-protection management, we can use his research to our advantage by measuring the violence options available to the bad person while measuring the options available to us to react, act and then respond.

Now let’s switch gears from normal healthy adults, to criminals. The Least Reactionary Zone, which is 6 to 12 feet from you to the bad guy, gives you the “Least amount of time to react.” Not the “Most,” not “Some,” but the “Least.”

There are some things to consider in the Least time to react distance.

• In this zone you have “just enough time” to make good first decisions if you are ready for the fight. If you have trained and practiced self-preservation options, tool cycling and have decisions in place before you needed them, then you could be one step ahead of that bad dude.
• You have the least amount of time to gather more information like look at his hands, any movement towards his waist, are his hands hidden, or is he targeting you?
• You have every right to try to “verbally manage” him, which means you speak to him directly if the event calls for such things. This is a verbal scale of escalation that helps you when managing potential threats.
• They have every right to be there or no right to be there, dependent on their actions, body language, etc.
• At this distance, you could be in immediate danger.
• If a bad guy is in shape, he can run and cover 12 feet in less than 1 second.
• The average stride is 3 feet. That means at 12 feet the bad guy can take 3 steps and grab you.
• Most quality pepper sprays can reach up to 12 feet.
• It can be very hard to gauge distances quickly and accurately so here is a quick measurement. Did you know that a twin mattress is 75 inches which is just a hair over 6 feet? That means imagine one twin for 6 feet and 2 twins for 12 feet.
• If you are in shape, you may have time to run away at 12 feet, but there is probably not enough space to decide, turn and run if they are closer to you.
• Putting an obstacle, or barrier in between you and the bad guy can give you time to get to a tool.
• Your decisions must be explosive and immediate.

Now back to the scenario. Just as you reach your vehicle, an apparent unarmed man jumps out from behind one of the cars that is parked close to you, aggressively asks for money and starts working his way towards you. You determine that he is much more than just an average panhandler and must be dealt with appropriately. Your guard may be down, but long ago, you made the decision to have your pepper spray in your dominant hand and a small flashlight in the other when you are alone at night. You have no problem handling these tools on a cold winter’s night because you have practiced deployment, aim and application with gloves on. You know that the cars in-between you will slow him down but there is still no time to ask or tell him to go away, so you move right into making him go away. You scream “GET AWAY FROM ME!” as you blind him with your flashlight to disorient, immediately follow up with pepper spray across the eyes to stop him in his tracks and then run safely back into the restaurant. You are the hero of your own story. You made decisions in advance, practiced verbal commands and different tools, you knew your pepper spray would reach up to 12 feet, and you understood how to use obstacles in your favor. Way to go!

The Reactionary Zone Part 2

 

Reactionary Zones Part Two: Some Time Is Better Than None

What happens when the problem is too close to avoid?

by Shelley Hill   copyright@stooting illustrated.com

 

       

 

Last month we dove into The Reactionary Zones Part 1, which focused on the “most” amount of time to react, act and respond to a threat. The most distance is around 25 feet and beyond. We often say that “distance equals time” so this zone gives us the most distance or time to make a really good first decision.

Scenario: It is the day after Thanksgiving and you have decided to “walk off” some of that turkey so you grab your coat and head out the door. You are on the sidewalk enjoying the fresh air, the cold on your face and then all of the sudden you catch movement out of the corner of your eye. You turn your head and see a group of 4 youths sitting on the hood of a neighbor’s car, and you know they are out of town for the holidays. They see you watching them, they are up to no good and they don’t like you looking at them, so one of them slides off the hood and starts walking towards YOU. What are your options?

The Space Between Us

Before we go any further, I would like to re-introduce you to Edward T. Hall.

Edward T. Hall is a cultural anthropologist that specialized in proxemics that are maintained by healthy, adult, middle-class Americans. He wrote a book called The Hidden Dimension that explains “proxemics” and the difference in “distance awareness” among many cultural groups.

There are several “aspects” of proxemics. The one that Hall writes about is the distance maintained between people when they are communicating. Hall named his four distances public, social, personal and intimate. The Complete Combatant has named their four Reactionary Zones “most amount of time to react,” “some amount of time to react,” “least amount of time to react” and “no amount of time to react.” In Reactionary Zones Part 2, we will be focusing on The Complete Combatant’s “some amount of time to react” distance.

Per Hall, social distances for normal healthy adults range from 4 to 12 feet. This distance fits perfectly for more formal business and social discourse. Discourse means “written or spoken communication” so at this range, it is very acceptable to make eye contact with a stranger for a few seconds, smile, nod at them, and even say hello.

Because of Hall's framework, we know people can feel the pressure of whether that person belongs in a specific zone/space/distance.  In self protection management, we can use his research to our advantage by measuring the violence options available to the bad person while measuring the options available to us to react, act and then respond. 

Some Time Is Not A Lot Of Time

Now let’s switch gears from normal healthy adults, to criminals. The “some” Reactionary Zone, which is 12 to 25 feet from you to the bad guy, gives you “some amount of time to react.” Not the most, but some.

In this zone you have some time to decide what to do like have pepper spray in hand, avoid, make contact, etc. You have some amount of time to gather more information like look at his hands, any movement towards his waist, are his hands hidden, is he targeting you? You have some amount of time to make this distance “come alive” by changing direction or just leaving the area. If that person changes their direction as well, then you now have an early warning sign and more good decisions must be made very quickly!

There are some things to consider in the “some time to react” distance.

• Around the further part of this zone, you don’t want to try to “manage” him. Meaning, you don’t want to yell at him or try to converse with him in any way.
• But if you are around the closer part if this zone, it is very reasonable to make eye contact with a stranger for a few seconds and nod at them. This says “I see you”.
• They have every right to be there….until they don’t.
• At this distance, you could be in immediate danger.
• If a bad guy is in shape, he can cover 25 feet in less than 2 seconds. He can cover 12 feet in less than 1 second.
• If you have a hard time gauging distances like me, ignore the numbers and let’s use an object to judge the distance. I hope one of these items resonates with you.

1. Four medium loveseats are 20 feet
2. Two average-sized kayaks are 20 feet
3. The most common rented U-Haul is 20 feet
4. Two basketball hoops stacked on top of each other is 20 feet
5. The most popular length bass boat to buy is 18 feet
6. Two treadmills are 16 feet
7. Two hockey goals are 12 feet
8. Two refrigerators are 12 feet

Now back to the scenario. You turn your head and see a group of 4 youths sitting on the hood of a car. At the same time you are judging distance and thinking that they seem “out of place”, you reach into your pocket for your pepper spray, all the while turning to run away. You must react, act and respond quickly. They do not chase you; they go back to trying to steal that car.

There is absolutely no benefit or positive outcome to engage with any of these kids. It is okay to run: Let’s not use your medical insurance because you thought stopping them was more important than your health.

You are now safe and sound in your home and the door is locked behind you. You call 911. You had some amount of time to make a good quick first decision…avoid! Now grab yourself a turkey sandwich, put your feet up and enjoy your day.

Understanding Reactionary Zones Part 1

 From Shooting Illustrated.com. The first in a 3 Part  series on 'Reactionary Zones', and the issues of time, speed and distance as they relate to your ability to perceive and react to a criminal assault.

 

Understanding Reactionary Zones

More room gives you more options when things get weird.

 copyright@Shootingillustrated.com

Scenario: It is a bright sunny day and you have just arrived at your local big-box discount store. The parking lot is pretty full, so you have no choice but to park around the middle of the lot, which is not as close to the door as you would prefer. You get out, lock the door and start walking towards the entrance when you notice someone leaning against the building right by the door. You think to yourself, that’s odd, they seem out of place. They are too far away to see facial details, but you can definitely tell they have zeroed in on you, their hips are facing you, you can’t see their hands, and there is no one else around.

Do you continue to walk towards the entrance, which means you are walking towards the threat? Do you turn and head towards the other entrance (you know this store has two entrances). Do you turn around; get back in your car, and leave?

Before we go any further, I would like to introduce you to Edward T. Hall.

Edward T. Hall is a cultural anthropologist that specialized in proxemics that are maintained by healthy, adult, middle-class Americans. He wrote a book called The Hidden Dimension that explains “proxemics” and the difference in “distance awareness” among many cultural groups.

There are several “aspects” of proxemics. The one that Hall writes about is the distance maintained between people when they are communicating. Hall named his four distances public, social, personal and intimate. The Complete Combatant has named their four Reactionary Zones “most amount of time to react,” “some amount of time to react,” “least amount of time to react” and “no amount of time to react.” In Reactionary Zones Part 1, we will be focusing on The Complete Combatant’s “most amount of time to react” distance.

Per Hall, public distances for normal healthy adults range from 15 to 25 feet. There is no physical contact and very little direct eye contact if at all possible. Public distances like shopping centers, airports, and city sidewalks are all designed to maintain this type of distance. Think about the last time you were in an airport. You have your carry-on luggage; you are walking toward your gate with only one goal in mind… ”I hope I have time to get a coffee before my flight”. Are you looking at every person you pass? Are you smiling and making eye contact or are you minding your own business and just working on going from point A to point B? My guess is that you are not stopping to speak to every person you see, in fact, you are probably avoiding eye contact all together. This is just fine. Public spaces are built wide open so you don’t have to engage.

Because of Hall's framework, we know people can feel the pressure of whether that person belongs in a specific zone/space/distance.  In self protection management, we can use his research to our advantage by measuring the violence options available to the bad person while measuring the options available to us to react, act and then respond.

Now let’s switch gears from normal healthy adults, to criminals. We call our furthest distance, which is 25 feet or beyond from you to the bad guy, “most amount of time to react.”

That means you have the most amount of time to react. You have the most amount of time for early warning decisions and decide if you want to walk away or pre-deploy pepper spray, flashlight, etc. You have the most amount of time to gather more information like look at his hands, any movement towards his waist, are his hands hidden, is he targeting you? You have the most amount of time to make this distance “come alive” by changing direction or just leaving the area. If that person changes their direction as well, then you now have an early warning sign and more good decisions must be made!

There are some things to consider in the most time to react distance.

• You don’t want to try to “manage” him. Meaning, you don’t want to yell at him or try to converse with him in any way.
• He has every right to be there…..until he doesn’t.
• Even if it is a sunny day, at that distance, you may not be able to clearly see his face and hands, but you may be able to understand his “body language”.
• At that distance, you are usually not in immediate danger.
• If the bad guy is in shape, he can cover 25 feet in less than two seconds.
• You can use a mid-sized car as a “distance guide”. The average length of a four door sedan is 15 feet. If you can image two sedans parallel parked then you can image 30 feet. That will work as the closest, 25 feet, distance in that zone.

Now back to your scenario. At the most time to react distance, and you see something that is “just not right”, then you should have time to get out of there. Don’t continue forward, which is bringing you closer to him. Don’t go in another entrance (unless you are asking a manager for assistance) because he will probably be waiting by your car when your return from shopping. Please just turn around (keeping an eye on him) and briskly walk back to your car and leave. You can go to another shopping center or return here at another time.

Sunday With Blackthorn - Footage From An Urban Combatives Class

 

Close Encounters In Parking Lots

 The following article is from Shooting Illustrated Magazine. Some practical points about avoiding a criminal confrontation. No Tacticool Bullshit, just some common sense that won't cost you a dime.

 https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/dealing-with-a-dark-parking-lot/

 

Dealing With A Dark Parking Lot

For most people, "street crime" is actually "parking lot crime."

by Shelley Hill  on January 5, 2025  copyright@shootingillustrated.com

 

 Bad guys love parking lots because there is usually not a ton of foot traffic, people are distracted, there is low lighting, and every car can provide the perfect hidey hole to sit and wait for a vulnerable target. All they must do is pick a spot where they are not easily seen, crouch and be ready to pounce.

They also love parking-garage stairs and elevators. These are uncontrolled transitional spaces that can be a benefit to the bad guy. Criminals can be at arm’s lengths from you, and you don’t know it until it’s too late. These close quarters sever you from others, can remove the option for you to run, your screams can’t be heard and the short distances between you and the bad guy can limit your response time.

Below are a handful of things that a criminal focuses on when choosing a parking lot to commit a crime.

1. Stealing a car. Statistics show that 22 to 23 percent of all cars stolen were stolen from parking lots at night or when left unattended for long periods of time.
2. Breaking into a car and stealing what’s inside the vehicle. Break-ins are up 25 percent from previous years.
3. Simple vandalism
4. Carjacking your car immediately after you park, when you are getting out. They also will target you while you are getting back into your vehicle. Studies show that 19 percent of carjacking occurs in parking lots.
5. Target an individual for robbery, with or without physical assault.
6. Sexual assault. I am unable to find any stats on the percentage of people sexually assaulted in a parking lot, but I can tell you that every 68 seconds another person is sexually assaulted in the United States. I can also tell you that 1 out of every 6 women and 1 out of every 33 men have been a victim of attempted or completed rape in their lifetime.
7. This is a bit outside the box but 70 percent of all “hit and runs” involve parked cars and most of these are in parking lots.

Now that we know what can happen, let’s focus on how to avoid being one of these stats. It is easier than you think.

• Park in well-lit parking lots
• Park near the entrance
• Park on “main” levels to avoid elevators and stairs. You could also consider getting some exercise and only using the parking lot ramps to get you to your destination.
• Walk in the middle of the isle/ramp as opposed to hugging the right or left side on the aisle.
• Have your pepper spray, a flashlight or both in your hands as you move about
• Stay off your phone
• Don’t listen to music and remove any earbuds
• Are you with kids or another person that may need your attention? Have a talk with them about expected behavior and the end goal. Consider bringing another adult with you if you know you will have many distractions while in public. Two heads are better than one.
• Be aware of what is in front of you, beside you and behind you. You can do this by just scanning the area and really look and see with a purpose.
• Walk with determination. Keep your head up and look confident.
• Eye contact for three seconds with another person in the parking lot is acceptable. If you move from a casual glance to a 5-10 second stare, that could invite the bad dude to challenge you.
• Be aware of cars cruising around, passing one point over and over again. Cruising around is not normal behavior in a parking lot. If you see that same car more than once, avoid it.
• When walking around a car, pillar, corner, etc., walk wide around the corner to avoid the closer distance with an object that could be hiding a bad dude. The same rule applies to another person. Give them space.

Recently, I was visiting a family member at the hospital. I entered when it was daylight and exited when it was dark. I followed all the suggestions above (that applied) and was appalled at what I saw on my 75-yard walk to my car. I passed no less than 10 people coming and going and not one person was aware of anyone or anything. They were on their phones or had earbuds in. They were distracted, had their hands and arms packed with items and never looked around. I actually saw one person get out of their car and stand there for several minutes with their door open while they gabbed on the phone. I told my husband that I have never felt so safe in a parking lot before because I was deselected just by looking around. All the other people were vulnerable targets. It was criminal’s playground.

I am not asking you to live in fear or never get in an elevator, I am asking you to be proactive and think ahead. I have said this before and I will say it again, you do not choose when and where an assault will happen, the bad dude does. Let’s ruin his day and not the other way around.

Sunday With Blackthorn - Are You Carrying The Wrong Knife?

 Utility, work, personal protection..... There are multiple reasons you might have to to carry a knife. You' don't need a Bowie knife to open boxes, and a box cutter isn't ideal for self defense. The video below discusses whether you've picked the right tool for  the job you need it for.

 

 

An Article On A Subject About A Big Much Needed Change Within The US Military

 Yeah, I know guys, No Wheelguns Or Workouts today.  Don't worry though, we will return to our usual programming next week. As for today, this article from the DefenseOne.com website is more than a bit prescient considering the changes that will be occurring  at the Dept of Defense with the new administration coming in.  Give it a look.

 

  The Army Is Too Top-Heavy

By R.D. Hooker, Jr.  copyright@The DefenseOne.com Website
Surplus generals, swollen staffs, and excess headquarters
drain headcount and resources from warfighting units.

Original Link; https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2024/12/army-too-top-heavy/401571/

With its many missions, the U.S. Army is hard-pressed to meet the requirements of the National Defense Strategy at its current authorized end strength. A major part of the problem is that the Army is awash in staffs, many of which did not exist during World War II, or even in the 1990s. After 9/11, the Army Staff grew by 60 percent, while headquarters and staffs Army-wide ballooned. All of these headquarters consume resources withheld from the warfighting Army. Nor can it be shown that Army functions are being executed more effectively or efficiently because multiple large headquarters have been created to run them.

A case in point is the Army Installation Management Command, or IMC, created in 2006 and chartered to “reduce bureaucracy, apply a uniform business structure to manage U.S. Army installations, sustain the environment and enhance the well-being of the military community.” IMC is headed by a lieutenant general, with a major general as deputy and brigadier general as chief of staff. IMC includes a workforce of 30,000 soldiers and 70,000 civilians. Formerly, Army installations were managed by garrison commanders reporting to local commanding generals, with an Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation Management. In theory, centralizing the installation management function promised common standards and greater expertise. In practice, results have fallen far short, with the Army experiencing a “crisis” in installation management in recent years.

Another compelling example is the Army Acquisition Corps, created in 1989 and today employing 1,600 commissioned officers plus many more senior civilians. Since its creation, the Army has failed badly with major program acquisitions, squandering billions on programs like the Crusader Field Artillery System, the Future Combat System, the Ground Combat Vehicle, the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter and the XM1299 Extended Range Cannon Artillery system, among others. No major Army program has been successfully fielded since the 1980s, a trend described by one Secretary of the Army as a “tale of failure.”

In 2018, the Army doubled down by creating Futures Command, adding another large 4-star headquarters to supervise an existing, labyrinthine set of acquisition headquarters which includes the Army Futures and Concepts Center, the Army Combat Capabilities Development Command and its associated battle labs, the Army Research, Development and Engineering Command; and the Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity, among others. Despite this massive infrastructure, the Army has not improved performance in this key sphere.

Growth in staff size and the proliferation of unneeded headquarters is accompanied by a strong tendency to “over-officer” the force, one factor in the explosion of personnel costs since 9/11. In 2024, one in six soldiers is a commissioned officer (a 21 percent increase since 2000). About one-third of the Army's personnel budget goes to officer pay and allowances. Between 1965 and 2018, the number of general and flag officers in the U.S. military as a percentage of the total force increased by 46 percent; of 4-stars by 114 percent; and of 3-stars by 149 percent. Such deliberate rank-inflation and over-staffing contributes to a bureaucratic culture that demands constant reporting from junior commanders, so much so that one authoritative Army War College study found a “suffocating amount of mandatory requirements” they are “literally unable to complete…forcing them to resort to dishonesty evasion.” Almost certainly, this environment contributes to an exodus of young officers who are frustrated by crushing administrative burdens they cannot reconcile with their duty to train their soldiers for war.

In short, the Army should shutter those organizations not deemed essential, reduce the officer-to-enlisted ratio, and streamline its bloated staffs. These measures will increase the number of billets available to operational units, decrease unnecessary reporting requirements on them, reduce personnel costs and increase the productivity and efficiency of those headquarters that remain. Leaner and flatter are watchwords in the private sector—and are clearly priorities for the incoming administration. America’s Army should adopt them as well.

Dr. Richard D. Hooker, Jr. is a Senior Fellow with The Atlantic Council and a Senior Associate with the Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center. He previously served as The Theodore Roosevelt Chair in National Security Affairs at the National Defense University and as University Professor at NDU’s National War College

Sunday With Blackthorn - Today, A Little More Of Shawn Ryan And Ed Calderon

 Today, a continuation of Ed Calderon demonstrating another interesting skill. Now the overwhelming majority of us will probably never be taken hostage by kidnappers whether for monetary or political reasons. However, it's still pretty interesting to watch.

 

 

Shawn Ryan Interviews Ed Calderon

 Link  brought to my attention by  long time subscriber Jed Berg. 

 

 

What Defines Your Age As You Get Older

 

Workout Wednesday, Sort Of....

 Today our old buddy and occasional contributor Steve Forester returns with an article on the subject of Competition or Reality. For anybody new to the forum, Steve is a retired career Army Airborne NCO who's been around. 

 Competition And Reality 

And Who Should Do What And Why

 by Steve Forester

 Today's Topic is competition and reality. My thesis is they are much the same these days. Life intimates art, and art imitates life. Let me explain.

I watched a a pistol and carbine training video last night by a guy who was with the Central Intelligence Agency's SAD (Special Activities Division) during the recent mid-east conflicts.  Now conventional wisdom has it that these boys are supposed to be some of the best in the business so I was interested to see how he did things.

I was mildly surprised to see almost all the techniques were competition derived. He was a sport shooter and mentioned his carbine was set up for competition. Interesting.

It struck me in a blinding flash of the obvious just how competition has become THE belief system for combative activities. I guess after years of training in our pajamas and believing in mystical Asian martial arts, our illusions died with the advent of the UFC, which exposed much of tradition exactly for what it was- tradition.

The US military gobbed off of the popularity of MMA. The MACP (Modern Army Combative Program) was, at it's start, 100% sporting BJJ. After criticism of not meeting the criteria of "train like you intend to fight", it evolved into a BJJ based combative program. In large part, no doubt, due to the imminent realities of Mid-East combat.

Techniques evolved into training in full kit, and integrating weapons use,  including retention of the M4 and the transition to pistol and/or knife.  However, MACP never forgot it's base art, BJJ. Because the overwhelming belief system is that if you are not trained and tested against a fully resisting opponent, then one is reverting back to the TMA fantasy. We absolutely must get in there and roll around and "fight".

Firearms techniques are divided today (for those living under rocks) into Pre 9-11 methodology and Post 9-11. Pre 9-11 techniques and weaponry being before the WTC came down, and 9-11 weapons and techniques developed during the decade of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan afterwards. Without going deeply into it, todays firearm methods evolved much like unarmed combatives.  It is sport based that was modified for combat.

The SOCP (Special Operation Combatives Program) is probably the highest form of this evolution. Greg Thompson took the MACP (which is the official US Army H2H program) and evolved it into a use of force method for when you can't shoot and seamlessly transition back and forth. All done in kit and all "alive", meaning force on force testing. He developed unique training gear that provided realism while maintaining a degree of safety. He also developed the SOCP dagger which is a standard part of SF kit today, along with other kit.

Post Afghanistan, the SF community started changing yet again back into a more covert mission of singletons, and small groups of operators, deployed overseas. Sometimes in plain clothes and in countries that were unsafe and restricted weapons in the hands of foreigners. Greg did an excellent job during this transition also, coming up with programs that taught self-defense in hostile areas,  and covert 'spy skills'.

The program is currently called the SOCP- Low Visibility. The following of the program is from the SOCP website


"An extension of SOCP®, the SOCP-LV® course has been further customized to address discreet/covert and low visibility operating profiles and paradigms. This course expands the operator knowledge base and skill set with niche techniques purposely designed to overcome challenges associated with: plain clothes operations, minimalist weapon(s) concerns (including field expedient weapons), CQB MOD(s) and deviations, and myriad lone operator essential survival skills. SOCP®-LV (Low Visibility) is based on current feedback from Soldiers, Marines and Federal agents traveling all over the world".


Here is a You Tube video of the SOPC-LV to give you a break from my dry, verbose commentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi_VnBL83i8&t=123s


The website has some other cool videos. On the knife defense video, Thomson states the MMA base for the program from about the :55 to the 1:12 mark. Notice the part where he says students must win and lose contests many, many times before they are even 50% ready for a real fight. Which leads me to my next point.

Do I think programs like the SOCP and SOCP-LV are good. Well, yes I do. Very good. But, think about who is taking these courses? The average person is a 28 year old Special Operations soldier who job is being proficient in combatives skills and physical fitness. When they attend courses like the SOCP-LV they do not pay out of pocket, or take vacation time. It is part of their job.

They are also some of the toughest and best of the best. A soldier in these units has passed numerous selections and tests. Heck, just being fit enough to meet the services' minimal physical standards is beyond most young people. These folks are the top .1 percentile of the best the country can offer.


My point? Glad you asked!

 My point is what about the remaining 99.9 percent of us? A civilian interested in self defense for example. Let's take a mythical guy (who is actually based on an acquaintance of mine) who is in his mid-60's and is in fair condition for his age. He has a CCW and carries regularly.  He has taken a basic handgun class involving safety, weapon/holster selection, carry methods, basic range marksmanship, and Use Of Force law. He goes to the range once a month and shoots a 50rd box of ammo.

Now, this guy wants to improve his skills even more (and he actually does). What is he to do? Now, this guy is light years ahead of most just having some physical capability and some training. But is he going to be physically and/or financially capable of taking a course where he is physically fighting people, rolling around, do force on force training? Is he going to spend years obtaining a BJJ and boxing base, then transition into these type skills.

I don't think so.

So where does that leave us? I think that leaves us with the WWII methods pioneered by Fairbairn & Sykes, and further modified for the street by my old Instructor Carl Cestari. We can do as Carl suggested in 2002 and 2003 at the seminars he gave, and get a BOB and start ingraining some basic strikes. Study how attacks happen and develop a plan to deal with them (also known as tactics). Start lifting weights or whatever form on physical conditioning you can do and/or prefer. Get Tough mentally. In Carl's words: "Grow some hard bark on your  ass". Toughen the body and natural weapons.

In addition, realize that unarmed combat is the bottom rung on the totem pole. Unarmed combat must be seamlessly integrated with self-defense weapons. And all that comes after a robust avoidance and deterrence strategy (prevention), and evasion & escape skills. Then, study things like travel security, vehicle operations, TAC-MED, etc.

These are things anyone can do to improve their personal security. Anyone can develop avoidance and awareness skills that will keep us more safe than 8 years of BJJ classes. And, all of this stuff is available out there to civilians and in books or on-line, or through DVD training.

The drawback is being willing to actually do it. Most people do not really want to train. Or, they just do not have the time to train. They are doing others things like earning a living and spending time with their families.

Carl knew this. That’s why he came up with short term and long term training. Short term was a a few weeks, or a few months at most, of the simplest and most efficient methods of close combat. Then, if the student quits training, they at least have something of benefit. As opposed to studying 3-4 months of BJJ which provides very little real life benefit.

I have an old article in which Carl talked about short-term, and "long -term" training. As with much of Carl's stuff, it took me years to fully understand, but short-term has a definite goal and a start and a stop point. Short-term is a good grasp of the fundamentals of unarmed combat, combined with weapon integration. And, a healthy dose of street smarts, and physical/mental toughening up. Could be done in 3-4 months if worked at daily, and have some natural talent. More realistic is 6-8 months.

It has taken me  24 years now and I'm still learning. I guess I must be really slow.  I have developed a good set of additional skills such as I mentioned before (avoidance and awareness, escape and evasion, travel security, etc.) However, for my close combat, I mainly train the material on Carl’s Old School DVD series, as well the close range pistol techniques of William Fairbairn. The essence of Fairbairn’s unarmed Close Combat is in the OS 1 and OS 2 videos, plus the OS Grabs and Holds Video. Additionally the OS Ground Fighting Video is a necessity today.

Most importantly is the fact that one can set up a BOB and a weight pile at home and do all the necessary training. As Carl often said, you can teach yourself close combat. No need to pay someone $200 a month.

While a good close combat instructor can help you through pitfalls and prevent going down rabbit holes, I now understand what Carl meant when he said you learn through your training. You teach yourself through your training. Your body will teach you the best techniques and ways to move - for you - instead of an instructor teaching by-rote what he does.

So, if you are a full time Special Operations type, the SOCP type programs are probably best. For the rest of us, basic close combat & self-defense is going to be the most we can hope for. I have been living this daily since 2017, and my first exposure to Carl was in 2001 - 24 years ago. And short-term is all I'm capable of.

Short term is not bad. In some ways better than long term if you go with the theory that less is more.

However, if a civilian really must experience SOCP, the Warrior Poet Society training group offers a two day civilian version for the low, low price of $750.

warriorpoetsupplyco.com/edc-combatives-force-on-force/


Myself, I think anyone would get more bang for the buck by doing as Carl suggested 20+ years ago:
1) Get the Old School DVD's

2) Get a BOB or at least a Heavy Bag

 3) Start to train hard

 4) Get a plan and develop some street smarts

 5) Lift weights/do a Bodyweight program/etc. to get strong

 5) Get Tough.

A better approach, IMO, than paying someone hundreds, or thousands of dollars, for perhaps little in return.

Sunday With Blackthorn - Today We Discuss "Operator Syndrome" And The Horrific Results Of The Global War On Terror On America's Special Forces

All I'm going to say here by way of an introduction to the article link below is that what has happened to far too many members of the American Special Forces community is absolutely unconscionable, and not only do changes need to be made, but heads need to roll as well.

 https://taskandpurpose.com/military-life/low-testosterone-operator-syndrome-sof/

A Brief Video Tutorial On The Slap From Urban Combatives

 While I personally wouldn't try it on someone who was massively larger than me, it definitely has the capability to disrupt the predator mindset of your erstwhile attacker, and put them on the defensive while you follow up with either another strike, or just take advantage of your opportunity to beat  a hasty retreat. 

Personally, I'm a big believer in the Ball Slap.

Since Pat McNamara And Clint Emerson AppearTo Be On A Roll

 Here's another video in the current series at the new Clint Emerson Channel. Don't let the title fool you though, the Spear that is discussed is not the Spearing Elbow technique used by Lee Morrison at Urban Combatives. This the SPEAR as taught by Tony Blauer. In this video though, Pat Mac (Unlike Tony Blauer) is able to get the point and method of the technique across in far less than an hour. 

 

Workout Wednesday

 Once again, Clint Smith is joined by Pat McNamara for a brief tutorial. This time Pat Mac covers the Front Kick. Now as Pat Mac himself says in the video, if you're an older guy or just not very flexible, you may want to keep your kick low. Like below the belt level low. I'm personally at the point where I keep any kicks I practice are kept to knee level or below. However if you're still on the right side of 35 or so, the Front Kick to the torso might be for you.