Navy Combatives : Adjusting Course for the Future
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Calhoun, Institutional Archive of the Naval Postgraduate School Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2010-12 Navy combatives : adjusting course for the future Lorah, Junior Charles Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/5105 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS NAVY COMBATIVES: ADJUSTING COURSE FOR THE FUTURE by Junior Charles Lorah December 2010 Thesis Advisor: Leo Blanken Second Reader: Frank Giordano Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED December 2010 Master’s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Navy Combatives: Adjusting Course for the Future 6. AUTHOR(S) Junior Charles Lorah 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Naval Postgraduate School REPORT NUMBER Monterey, CA 93943-5000 9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING N/A AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. IRB Protocol number _____N.A._______. 12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words) The purpose of this research is to identify if there is a need for combatives training in the United States Navy. Historically, there would not be a need for a Navy Self-Defense Program. However, the operating environment has changed. The mission of the Navy is changing. The battlefield, which has typically been largely a one-dimensional front led by the United States Army, requires a more dynamic, all-encompassing approach. Emerging oppositions, and increased military commitments on a global scale, expanded the roles of all service members. The most dramatic change is to the Navy Sailor. Servicemen, in particular Sailors, are being assigned to non-traditional tasks. Ten years ago, this was not the case. However, with 9/11, the Navy’s role has changed. The Navy has historically lacked in this type of training. Currently, limited training in self-defense is provided. The Navy has no proactive plan for the future. Hand-to-hand combat training for the Navy is completely overlooked. The Army Modern Combatives Program (MAC) and Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) were developed out of the need for a standardized system to train and develop warriors. The Air Force Combative Program (AFCP) was born from the MAC mold, recognizing a need to enhance fighting capabilities. On an international level, Israel and Russia developed programs for similar reasons. MCMAP is the recommended program to introduce combatives to the U.S. Navy. From there, the U.S. Navy can develop a program that is tailored to the different job specialties available. Core facilities are available in key Navy ports throughout the world that can provide a training ground for Navy combatives. From a cost-benefit look at combatives, this thesis argues that the benefits outweigh the costs. Injuries will occur in combatives, but the benefits to teaching combatives outweigh these costs. Providing a self-defense program helps develop and enhance the overall skills of a Sailor. Additionally, self-defense training might help a Sailor recognize weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Most importantly, combatives enhances the qualities of the Navy Core Values in every Sailor. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF Military Combatives, MAC, MCMAP, AFCP, Navy Self-defense Program PAGES 113 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF THIS CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT REPORT PAGE ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UU NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ii Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited NAVY COMBATIVES: ADJUSTING COURSE FOR THE FUTURE Junior Charles Lorah Lieutenant, United States Navy B.S., University of Phoenix, 2003 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN DEFENSE ANALYSIS from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL December 2010 Author: Junior Charles Lorah Approved by: Leo Blanken Thesis Advisor Frank Giordano Second Reader Dr. Gordon McCormick Chairman, Department of Defense Analysis iii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iv ABSTRACT The purpose of this research is to identify if there is a need for combatives training in the United States Navy. Historically, there would not be a need for a Navy Self-Defense Program. However, the operating environment has changed. The mission of the Navy is changing. The battlefield, which has typically been largely a one-dimensional front led by the United States Army, requires a more dynamic, all-encompassing approach. Emerging oppositions, and increased military commitments on a global scale, expanded the roles of all service members. The most dramatic change is to the Navy Sailor. Servicemen, in particular Sailors, are being assigned to non-traditional tasks. Ten years ago, this was not the case. However, with 9/11, the Navy’s role has changed. The Navy has historically lacked in this type of training. Currently, limited training in self-defense is provided. The Navy has no proactive plan for the future. Hand-to-hand combat training for the Navy is completely overlooked. The Army Modern Combatives Program (MAC) and Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) were developed out of the need for a standardized system to train and develop warriors. The Air Force Combative Program (AFCP) was born from the MAC mold, recognizing a need to enhance fighting capabilities. On an international level, Israel and Russia developed programs for similar reasons. MCMAP is the recommended program to introduce combatives to the U.S. Navy. From there, the U.S. Navy can develop a program that is tailored to the different job specialties available. Core facilities are available in key Navy ports throughout the world that can provide a training ground for Navy combatives. From a cost-benefit look at combatives, this thesis argues that the benefits outweigh the costs. Injuries will occur in combatives, but the benefits to teaching combatives outweigh these costs. Providing a self-defense program helps develop and enhance the overall skills of a Sailor. Additionally, self-defense training might help a Sailor recognize weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Most importantly, combatives enhances the qualities of the Navy Core Values in every Sailor. v THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK vi TABLE OF CONTENTS I. HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT: BUILDING THE COMPLETE SAILOR ...........1 A. UNARMED COMBAT: NOT JUST FOR THE ARMY.............................1 B. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................2 C. BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................3 D. RESEARCH QUESTION ...............................................................................4 E. HYPOTHESIS..................................................................................................5 F. LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................................5 G. METHODOLOGY AND CHAPTER SUMMARIES ..................................6 II. THREE OUT OF FOUR AIN’T BAD!....................................................................11 A. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................11 B. UNITED STATES ARMY ............................................................................11 1. Brief History.......................................................................................11 2. Development: A Rough Road Well Worth the Pain......................13 3. The Benefits Outweigh the Risks......................................................15 4. Current and Future Challenges........................................................16 C. UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS .........................................................17 1. Brief History.......................................................................................17 2. MCMAP: Not Your Daddy’s Combatives Program......................19 3. The Three Disciplines: Physical, Mental, Character.....................20 4. The Present and Future of MCMAP................................................24 D. UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ..................................................................25 1. Brief