Universal Principles of Combat - Gabe Suarez

[esrice]

Got another email from Gabe. . . .
*************************************



Fighting is fighting and it has always been the same from David's Warriors to today's "Shock and Awe". Whether using a rock, a spear, a machete or a Glock, the principles for fighting are exactly the same. Here are a few of them.

1). Real fights are not "matches" or situations of mutually agreed upon combat where two fighters square off against each other for a prize. All fights are ambushes. Be the ambush-er and not the ambush-ee. The "fair fight" crowd may call them "sucker punches"...or "back shooting" with some disdain as their mythical heroes John Wayne and Matt Dillon would never resort to those measures. They are stupid. Being first is an advantage. Waiting for the other man to move first is not smart. Be the ambusher.

2). If you cannot be first, you need to forestall the attack by drastically causing a change in the adversary. You can do this by; Intercepting his attack, or arriving on target first. An example is that you see him go for his gun, but you are dramatically faster and you are able to shoot him before he gets into action. Or you see him pull his fist back to punch, but you are able to punch him first. If you cannot guarantee being that fast (who can?), an alternative method is to Evade the attack, or Move off the X. A wise fighter would counter attack AS he evades the initial attack.

3). Generally a face on face fight is unwise and destructive whether between men or between armies. There is a reason why most advanced militaries prize the ability to maneuver. So learn to move....agility is more important than precise marksmanship. Seek his flank or seek his back, and then deliver as much force as possible there.

4). Once the fight begins, destroy the other man. Mercy has no place in the middle of the battle. Capacity for extreme violence is a desirable character trait, so develop it and cultivate it. The tentative army will never win a single battle. This has to do with several traits such as moral certainty, feral anger, and cool control of both.

5). The objective is to win, pure and simple. The objective is not to determine the strongest fighter, or the cleverest tactician, or the most gifted athlete. The most gifted athlete will still die with a knife in his throat, the cleverest tactician will still die with a bullet in his face, and the strongest fighter will still die when run over by a Jeep. Understand your objective and devise ways to attain it.

6). Along those lines - Fair is For Fools. If your enemy is weaker than you are, over run him and squash him like a bug making use of your strength. If your enemy is as strong, deceive him, ambush him and take him when he is not ready. If your enemy is stronger, avoid him and pick him off at a distance where his strength will not help him. Some will say this is cowardly....with their last breath.

The purpose of fighting is to win and to force the other side to do as you wish. Whether for them to give you something, or to simply cause them to retreat in disorder, that is the only purpose for fighting. And contrary to the liberal's spineless whine that it solves nothing, fighting solves just about everything. Understand it and make it yours.

[hotfarmboy1]

Good post! I agree 100% +1

[Cpt Caveman]

" fighting solves just about everything" Good point of view.

[SC_Shooter]

Of course, the best fight is the one you don't have to fight, but when it happens...the only thing that matters is to win. I suppose an ugly win is better than a pretty loss any day of the week.

Great post.

[Disposable Heart]

I think it is interesting about the seek a flank or hit the back concept. I agree with this fully, but so many are afraid of lawsuits in regards to "questionable shoot" with back hits?
What is everyone's views on that? I dont want to start a fight twixt folks, but an honest open discussion regarding Gabe's views.

I like the idea of disproportionate defense. Sort of the "they pull a knife, you pull a gun" concept. Only way to win.

On a side note: I always wonder what guys like Gabe Suarez are like? What kind of car do they drive, music they listen to, etc... How do modern day "warriors" live their modern day to day.

[esrice]

Originally Posted by Disposable Heart

I think it is interesting about the seek a flank or hit the back concept. I agree with this fully, but so many are afraid of lawsuits in regards to "questionable shoot" with back hits?
What is everyone's views on that?

These liability concerns come from different horror-story lawsuits in which some poor soul is left to rot in prison after his attacker turned and was hit in the back. I would say that 9 times out of 10 this is due to a very poor job on the part of his attorney.

Step 1 should always be "stay alive long enough to show up for court!"

[2ADMNLOVER]

Somebody's been reading Sun Tzu !

[esrice]

Just got a follow-up email on this topic. . . .

********************************************

IN THE PAST ISSUE WE DISCUSSED THE FOUNDATIONAL UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF COMBAT. AFTER MANY EMAILS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT APPLICATIONS WE WILL VISIT THE INDIVIDUAL POINTS MORE THOROUGHLY


1). Real fights are not "matches" or situations of mutually agreed upon combat where two fighters square off against each other for a prize. All fights are ambushes. Be the ambush-er and not the ambush-ee. The "fair fight" crowd may call them "sucker punches"...or "back shooting" with some disdain as their mythical heroes John Wayne and Matt Dillon would never resort to those measures. They are stupid. Being first is an advantage. Waiting for the other man to move first is not smart. Be the ambusher.

I remember the days of my youth, when schoolyard fights attracted a crowd and not the local SWAT Team. These were affairs of honor, almsot like the concentual duels of the ante-bellum south. One would issue the challenge, "I'll kick your a** after school". The other side would flip the bird, and so one. Even though these were good fights, there were in fact rules. Usually it was one-on-one, it was mutually-agreed combat, and no weapons were involved. Moreover, if one side was hurt, the fight would stop and a victor declared by the crowd. It was as close to a fair fight - or a juvenile version of the UFC as you would ever see.

Then at some point, I grew up and began to get into real fights. First while working some protective details (what else is a karate instructor to do for extra cash), and later as a cop. While many people drag the schoolyard duel concept with them all their lives, the real fights on the street were nothing like those. One side would decide to attack the other. Then either a rush, or a stealthy approach followed by a sucker attack would follow. Oftentimes, the sucker attack would come from behind. This left the intended victim no choice but to either run at the first sign of hostility, or to preempt the attcak, if he did not possess the skills to counter the ambush.

The trick of course was to see it coming and take steps. But since few people choose to live in violent worlds as some of us did, picking up these clues was always problematic and led to either under, or over reactions. One thing that served me well in those days was the simple act of profiling. While it may be bane of the modern social coward (also known as a liberal), Immediate Profiling of anyone approaching you for any reason at all, will yield a shot cut to the decission making process. This includes, age, attire, mannerisms, numbers, as well as yes, race. It also includes place, time, and activity you are involved in.

In short, as DiNiro said in Ronin - If there is any doubt, there is no doubt. Take steps by either leaving the scene of concern, or be prepared to start the fight at the first sign of hostility.

2). If you cannot be first, you need to forestall the attack by drastically causing a change in the adversary. You can do this by; Intercepting his attack, or arriving on target first. An example is that you see him go for his gun, but you are dramatically faster and you are able to shoot him before he gets into action. Or you see him pull his fist back to punch, but you are able to punch him first. If you cannot guarantee being that fast (who can?), an alternative method is to Evade the attack, or Move off the X. A wise fighter would counter attack AS he evades the initial attack.

It takes alot for a modern domesticated man to act first. If you have not smashed your fist into another man's face since third grade, hitting first will be very difficult for you as you try to negotiate and rationalize a way out of the set up ambush. Additionally, the clues you are getting may not trickle in, but wash over you very quickly in succession so that staying up and making correct tactical decissions are not as easy as the guys evaluating it on the internet years later.

There are two things you can do to save yourself if the option of first strike is not there for you.

One is to intercept the attack. This is what the late great Bruce Lee named his system after (Jeet Kune Do - Intercepting Fist System). To intercept an attack you need greater speed than the attacker, as well as better timing. In other words, you need to be adept at reading the physical signs very well, and in trusting what you see as actual and not imaginary. You also need the ability to launch reflexively with no hesitation. I recall one time I saw a gang member take a slight balding posture when "field interviewing him". I recognized this as a pre-assault clue and cold cocked him with a maglite (they make the loveliest sound when bouncing off a human skull), thus intercepting his attack physically.

The other option is to change the target location (you are the target). This is a very dynamic way of intercepting his attack with a void. The void is where you were when the attack materialized physically. Think of a master shooter looking intently at a target, and then performing a speed draw from concealment with the intent of firing a two shot string as fats and as committed as possible. Only at the last moment, his target is no longer there, but six feet from the original spot and at the shooters right. This can be called a mental interception and is the basis of the now state of the art, "Get Off The X" methodology.

Both of the above practically reset the adversary's OODA loop back to the beginning and turn reactive into proactive. It is the sort of thing SunTsu, Musashi, and Lee wrote about.

3). Generally a face on face fight is unwise and destructive whether between men or between armies. There is a reason why most advanced militaries prize the ability to maneuver. So learn to move....agility is more important than precise marksmanship. Seek his flank or seek his back, and then deliver as much force as possible there.

John Wayne was an actor, not a warrior. Same goes for James Arness and the myriad of Western heroes that formed our notion of a "Fair Fight". Incidentally, this notion of fair fighting is the basis of much of the pistol shooting training in evidence in America today. The lineage is Old West Movies - Old West Fast Draw - Bear Valley Gunslingers - Modern Technique - IPSC, etc.

So my recommendation is this. Put down the copy of American Handgunner and IPSC Cool Guy Magazine, and read the accounts of special operations in the historical record. From Joshua's conquest of the Promised Land, to Attilla The Hun, to the Blitzkrieg and the modern day Shock and Awe, the history of true combat (and not sport) is a study of ambush and counter ambush. Get a military manual on Ambushing and learn the concepts.

Paramount to applying an ambush is understanding how to surprise the adversary as well as the ability to move quickly. In fact, if you can move quickly, appear where you are not expected, and can surprise your adversary, you will be nearly untouchable in a fight.

Another part is the issue of attacking the flanks and attacking the back. "Good heavens", you say. "John Wayne was not a back shooter". Quite correct, he was also not a real warrior. If you can backshoot an adversary, I think that is the best sort of gunfight to be in. remember - fair is for fools.

4). Once the fight begins, destroy the other man. Mercy has no place in the middle of the battle. Capacity for extreme violence is a desirable character trait, so develop it and cultivate it. The tentative army will never win a single battle. This has to do with several traits such as moral certainty, feral anger, and cool control of both.

For some reason, wetern man seems to be a permission based animal. He wants to be given clearnace to do just about everything. He is taught from an early age to obey, comply, and go along. He is also taught from an early age that violence is wrong, even though it emanates from the pores of little boys.

This goes along with the incorrect "Thou Shall Not Kill" statement. In the original text, it is "Thous Shall Not Murder". Murder is quite different from killing. God was not against killing. As a matter of fact, He was quite in favor of it at the appropriate times. He has always been against murder. Since killing is the natural conclusion of extreme violence, a man who thinks killing is wrong is not properly educated. A man not capable of violence is a man whose manhood is supect.

Violence is like eating, and a point of history, was even tied to eating at some point. He who did not kill did not eat. Violence is either good or evil depending on what it is being used for. Witness all the "good killing" that went on in the Old Testament. Those interested in developing a combat spirit must get that issue correct in their minds.

5). The objective is to win, pure and simple. The objective is not to determine the strongest fighter, or the cleverest tactician, or the most gifted athlete. The most gifted athlete will still die with a knife in his throat, the cleverest tactician will still die with a bullet in his face, and the strongest fighter will still die when run over by a Jeep. Understand your objective and devise ways to attain it.

Knowing this, does fairness matter? Does sportsmanship matter? Not at all. If we take the attitude, "I am not interested in fighting with anyone, nor am I interested in testing myself against anyone - but neither am I about to grovel to anyone to avoid a fight", we will be developing the right thought path.

Then to continue, "But if the fight comes, I will use anything I need to use to win, whether I need to smash my fist into their faces, stab my knife into their guts, blow their brains out with my pistol, or run over them with my SUV, I will prevail no matter how bloody I have to get or no matter what level of violence I need to reach".

6). Along those lines - Fair is For Fools. If your enemy is weaker than you are, over run him and squash him like a bug making use of your strength. If your enemy is as strong, deceive him, ambush him and take him when he is not ready. If your enemy is stronger, avoid him and pick him off at a distance where his strength will not help him. Some will say this is cowardly....with their last breath.

I don't think this last one has any need of elaboration. You are all grown men. When grown men fight, they fight for keeps and there are always weapons involved in those fights. Leave John Wayne and James Arness where they belong, as mythical entertainment heroes of the way things ought to be, and not an example of the way the real world is.

And above all do not let them influence your training. Train like the fight was for keeps and not like it was a match for a trophy. And then test those skills under duress, in the crucible of force on force, and change them as needed with no consideration at all for tradition.

[shooter521]

Anyone else have an issue with this?

I recall one time I saw a gang member take a slight blading posture when "field interviewing him". I recognized this as a pre-assault clue and cold cocked him with a maglite thus intercepting his attack physically.

Gabe is interviewing a gang member (who may or may not have been a suspect in anything), gang member shifts his stance a bit (may or may not have been a "pre-assault clue"), and Gabe clocks him. WTF, over?

IMO, the biggest issue that we as armed citizens face is that we are always going to initially be on the defensive in a confrontation. The attacker, by definition, will be the first to act, which causes us to react. We can use our situational awareness and knowledge of pre-attack indicators to close the reaction gap, and our tactics/skills to take the initiative after his initial action, but we are simply can't go clocking/stabbing/shooting people at the first sign of potential trouble as Gabe would seem to suggest.

As for the rest of it, I'm largely in agreement. When it comes to physical combat, "if your'e going to fight, fight dirty" and "always cheat, always win" are sentiments near and dear to my heart.

[2ADMNLOVER]

Originally Posted by shooter521

Anyone else have an issue with this?

I recall one time I saw a gang member take a slight blading posture when "field interviewing him". I recognized this as a pre-assault clue and cold cocked him with a maglite thus intercepting his attack physically.

Gabe is interviewing a gang member (who may or may not have been a suspect in anything), gang member shifts his stance a bit (may or may not have been a "pre-assault clue"), and Gabe clocks him. WTF, over?

I don't have one problem with what he did .

If you see a man "squat" slightly getting in his center , shift his body so that he's sideways to you or plant one foot or the other , in my experience these are signs your about to get hit .

If your lucky enough to see it coming , do something about it or be stuck on stupid and take what you get .