PDA

View Full Version : Where did it go?



Neil Hawkins
22nd April 2001, 16:11
I was just catching up on some EJMAS, and found an interesting essay entitled Borrowed Ritual, invention of tradition: the construction of the "traditional" martial arts dojo. (http://www.ejmas.com/proceedings/GSJSA99klens.htm) by Deborah Klens-Bigman, Ph.D.

Now many interesting points are brought up, but I felt that as many questions are raised and left for us to ponder. One section that caught my eye was:


Ultimate fighting contests, which have evolved over the past ten years, ostensibly seek to "restore" the "fighting spirit" of martial arts competition, but instead have obliterated generations of development of martial arts as a means not only of learning to fight, but becoming better people, an evolution traced by Cameron Hurst (1998) and others. If anything, ultimate fighting is helping to eliminate centuries of development of one the best aspects of the Western tradition: sportsmanship.

I have noticed that increasingly, the goal of sport is to win, it's not a recent thing, and it's not restricted to the Martial Arts. Where has 'sportsmanship' gone? And why did it go?

I'm inclined to blame money and consumerism. If you want to play basketball, you have to play for an NBA team and earn millions of dollars. Is basketball still fun? Are kids being given unreal expectations? The percentage that will ever get to that level is low, very low. How often are parent pushing kids too hard? I don't know, but I'd say it's too often.

But is there more to the loss of sportsmanship than money?

Non-competitive martial arts tend to promote good sportsmanship, or do they? Isn't fighting about winning? On the street there's no room for second place.

Spiritual based MA's are a better example, but that's not really good sportsmanship. The philosophy can easily be adapted to sportsmanship but it's more about life than sport.

So what is good sportsmanship, is it a dead concept today or is it still promoted?

Is there a place for it in Martial Arts today?

If so, what can we do to try and bring it back?

Neil

Joseph Svinth
29th April 2001, 02:32
I think good sportsmanship began dying around Verdun and the Somme during 1915-1916, and went the way of the dodo with the postwar spread of totalitarianism. (Despite Highlander, "In the end, there can be only one," is not the motto of good sportsmen.)

Certainly by the end of WWII good sportsmanship was on its last legs, as by then Olympic medal counts had become important than celebrating human achievement, and even the football coaches were being quoted as saying that winning was not everything, it was the only thing.

Jody Holeton
29th April 2001, 03:06
Dear Mr.Svinth and Mr.Hawkins,

I think these are the best times for martial arts. The old ways are being looked at for current useability and new fighting styles are being made for modern uses.

I do some Val Tudo, Judo and Karate. I have also done Shinto Muso Ryu, and Muso Jikiden Eishen-ryu. I have never thought of the concept of "good sportsmanship" before. Could you define the term?

Should there be things considered "good" or "sportsmanlike" in things martial?

Should there be good sportsmen in the Marine Corps martial arts program?

Any info would be appreciated--Jody

Joseph Svinth
29th April 2001, 03:44
First one has to define "sportsmanship." According to my dictionary, "sportsmanship" dates as a word to 1745, and refers to "conduct becoming a sportsman." "Sportsman" dates to 1706, and refers to one who engages in sports, especially hunting and fishing. Later, in mid-Victorian times (under the influence of Muscular Christianity, the return to chivalry, and that sort of thing), it also came to mean a person who is fair, generous, and gracious in both defeat and victory.

So the question is, should those Marines be fair, generous, and gracious in both defeat and victory, or should they just kill or be killed, with mission accomplishment their sole reason for being?

Jody Holeton
29th April 2001, 15:31
Dear Mr.Svinth,

Seems a good sportsman also has ideals of what the ideal human should posess?

In the sports/martial sports I've trained in (Judo, Val Tudo, Karate etc.) there have ben rules that people played by. Some people get caught up in competition and lose sight of the fact that it is play.

Playing is what we are talking about here?

Marines have standards and honor but their main goals are to follow orders and to win wars.

War and fighting somebody in a ring with ref are two vastly different things.

Kit LeBlanc
29th April 2001, 16:47
Ahhh, where to begin..

First off, the idea that UFC/Pride/Vale Tudo (let's just call it Mixed Martial Arts/MMA, the term the sport seems to be officially adopting) are somehow obliterating the values of martial arts and sportsmanship is uninformed at best. I suspect the writer witnessed one or two of the early events and already is pre-disposed to poo-poo-ing such things as thuggery, not martial arts, due to a preference for the more "spiritual" of the budo forms. A cursory read of various sources, including Mr. Hurst's, will reveal that in the Golden Age of Budo jujutsu, swordsmanship and even kyudo were very much about winning over people from other ryu.

Certainly there are guys involved in this sport that are not paragons of sportsmanship, as in any sport. Shall we visit the Bad Budo section to view case after case of those involved in "spiritually self perfecting" arts that are NOT so spiritually self perfected? It is not the practice, it is the person.

There is a great deal of respect and sportsmanship amongst the majority of competitors in MMA events. In the last Pride (13 I think it was) Vanderlei Silva, one of my favorites and incidentally the poster boy for "you don't have to go to the ground," beat the crap out of Kazushi Sakuraba, also one of my favorites. Sakuraba is about the most highly regarded MMA fighter at this time and is especially so in Japan.

Did Saku whine? Did he snivel? No. He got up (when the docs let him...) and he personally brought his championship belt to Silva while still in the ring. Both men traded hugs and what limited words they could (as Silva seems to speak only Portugese and Sakuraba only Japanese). A translator qouted Silva as saying, in the ring right after his defeat of Saku, that he wanted a re-match with the man he considers the best in MMA. Apparently like many of us watching he felt Saku didn't seem himself and he wants to give the guy another shot.

There is a moment in the Tracy Telligman (sp?) Igor Vovchanchin match where Vovchanchin throws a low kick (below the belt that is, not the legs...) that obviously affects Tra. It does not appear that the ref witnessed it. Still, Vovchanchin backs off and repeatedly apologizes, and gives Tra some breathing space to collect himself after the kick. Tra goes on to win the bout, a surprise for many of us watching.

Any view of the candids at the airport after the fight will show that many fighters have a great deal of respect for one another for the most part. Why? People are getting better and better and it is common for an unknown or lesser known fighter to win a match against a power house. The fighters HAVE to show respect because the smack-talking so common to the early UFC's only makes them look like idiots when they go out and get spanked by someone no one thinks will win. The interviews with various fighters show much the same thing.

There are a few holdouts. Some of the guys or even groups have bad attitudes and act very poorly in public. Going to the various MMA discussion boards reveals that these people are dogged repeatedly for their bad conduct, and examples like Silva and Saku are held up as being the best for the sport. Most of the guys are professional sportsmen and they show it with their conduct. They realize they have to, as they are desperately trying to get acceptance for MMA here in the States and are admittedly battling a stigma associated with the early UFC events. Interestingly, the more a professional sport it becomes, the more sportsmanship is there.


As far as "sportmanship" and real life combative encounters, my thinking goes this way;

Budo is about controlling violence. We train to learn to control the violence within ourselves so that we may harness it in order to control it in others. In practice this means a surgical application of whatever level of violence fits the particular situation. It should be a PROFESSIONAL decision, not an emotional one. Certainly emotions will be involved, but they must be controlled.

The late Yukiyoshi Takamura of the Shindo Yoshin-ryu put it this way in an interview published in Aikido Journal #117:

" A pacifist is not a pacifist if he is unable to make a choice between violence and non-violence. A true pacifist is able to kill or maim in the blink of an eye, but at the moment of impending destruction of the enemy he chooses non-violence. He chooses peace. He must be able to make a choice. He must have the genuine ability to destroy his enemy and then choose not to. I have heard this excuse made ' I choose to be a pacifist before learning techniques so I do not need to learn the power of destruction.' This shows no comprehension of the mind of the true warrior. This is just a rationalization to cover the fear of injury or hard training. The true warrior who chooses to be a pacifist is willing to stand and die for his principles. People claiming to be pacifists who rationalize to avoid hard training or injury will flee instead of standing and dying for principle. They are just cowards. Only a warrior who has tempered his spirit in conflict and who has confronted himself and his greatest fears can in my opinion make the choice to be a true pacifist."


On the level that Takamura sensei was speaking, I think it becomes more of a spiritual choice than a professional one. In my opinion this can be the only true "spirituality" in martial arts i.e. in the midst of a combative encounter, not alone on a polished dojo floor with "the sword and the mind" (with props to Hunter Armstrong.)

The dojo lacks the conflict and lacks the fear necessary to forge such spirit. Yes, even the koryu dojo where they come at you full speed with wooden swords is nothing like the real thing, no matter how much they want to believe it is.

Certainly in the real world things may pan out differently with every situation, and we have to come to terms with what occurred in light of our budo training. Sometimes the particular mission may require a very different or much harsher use of violence, but if it is for a greater good, the principles are the same. Our training should make us aware of and prepare us for such things and hopefully guides us when the s**t hits the fan.

Kit LeBlanc

Joseph Svinth
30th April 2001, 09:56
The Mongols viewed war as a hunt, and there is much validity to that viewpoint. Hunt = sport, in the original usage of the term. Thus the "game" is the hunt, against moving targets that get to shoot back. The greater the risk, the greater the thrill of the hunt. (At least until you get to Mutually Assured Destruction. Then most people back down, as "we both lose" is not generally a desirable game theory outcome.)

Given this, I fail to see how USMC operations differ significantly from "good sportsmanship"? For example, the following is the actual deadly force briefing given a group of Marines prior to going into Kuwait during Desert Storm:

"All the laws of war boil down to these three fundamentals:

1. If it needs to be killed, kill it.
2. If it doesn't need to be killed, don't kill it.
3. If you see somebody killing something that doesn't need to be killed, try to stop them.

Any questions?"

-- Captain Thomas D. Dicken III, USMC

Anyway, these rules are NOT "kill or be killed." (A concept originally introduced, by the way, to overcome the reluctance of British soldiers to shoot Germans during the Sitzkrieg of 1939-1940. See, for example, James Dunning, "It Had to Be Tough: The fascinating story of the origins of the Commandos and their special training in World War II," ISBN 0-9515790-1-0. You can order it through Amazon.uk, among other places.)

Jody Holeton
30th April 2001, 14:34
Mr. Le BLanc raises good points.

Dear Mr.Svinth,

Before, I was using the Marines as an example of warriors/martial artists using rules. They do have them. You do raise issues that I have talked about during some of my interviews with Japanese WWII vets.

All I was stating is that everybody has rules. If I want morality though I would rather go to a church or a temple to study it no matter how pretty an AMerican kamidana is....

You are always going to get trash talkers, bullying instructors or guys trying to sucker punch you. Theres one in every crowd and one in every dojo.

The Val Tudo stuff I do WE HAVE TO TRUST EACH OTHER. The jerks who come and want to play bad aXX dont last. The wrestlers and kickboxers I train with are serious and professional. We all know whos the most skilled in class and I think we all try to hikitategeiko (pulling up training to a new level) at times.

Soulend
7th May 2001, 10:21
The correlation between the 'good sportsmanship' and the law of war is an interesting one. However, unless I misunderstand the term sportsmanship, I feel that 'sportsmanship' and conduct in battle are not interchangable concepts, mainly stemming from the fact that warfare is not a 'sport'. I am sure that the neither bushi of the Sengoku period nor the Marine on the beaches of Saipan viewed it as such.

Of course the law of war is integral to our doctrine, but the USMC martial arts program, LINE training, qualification with the M-16, and even familiarization with the 240G or Predator AT weapon are simply means to an end: the defeat of the enemy.

In sport, say a Judo match, both parties are combatants. Within the constraints of the tournament, each tries to win over the other. The law of war does not apply, unless the judoka decides to start attacking the spectators.

In battle, one prevails by any means neccesary, fair or foul, against the adversary. There is not the luxury of 'the enemy is falling back, let's let them go', or something similar. Outside of unneccesary cruelty or engaging noncombatants one must exploit every opportunity.

With all due respect Mr. Svinth, 'fair, generous, and gracious in both defeat and victory' is idealized and probably quite laughable to the combat Marine in the field. I'm not saying that a Marine or soldier is supposed to be barbaric, but good heavens, combat is not randori.

Philosophizing about one's "graciousness" in battle is the domain of the retired general writing his memoirs. Within the auspices of the Geneva Conventions and the law of war, battle is only death and defeat is not an option.

In this context, winning IS the only thing.

Soulend
7th May 2001, 10:28
The correlation between the 'good sportsmanship' and the law of war is an interesting one. However, unless I misunderstand the term sportsmanship, I feel that 'sportsmanship' and conduct in battle are not interchangable concepts, mainly stemming from the fact that warfare is not a 'sport'. I am sure that the neither bushi of the Sengoku period nor the Marine on the beaches of Saipan viewed it as such.

Of course the law of war is integral to our doctrine, but the USMC martial arts program, LINE training, qualification with the M-16, and even familiarization with the 240G or Predator AT weapon are simply means to an end: the defeat of the enemy.

In sport, say a Judo match, both parties are combatants. Within the constraints of the tournament, each tries to win over the other. The law of war does not apply, unless the judoka decides to start attacking the spectators.

In battle, one prevails by any means neccesary, fair or foul, against the adversary. There is not the luxury of 'the enemy is falling back, let's let them go', or something similar. Outside of unneccesary cruelty or engaging noncombatants one must exploit every opportunity.

With all due respect Mr. Svinth, 'fair, generous, and gracious in both defeat and victory' is idealized and probably quite laughable to the combat Marine in the field. I'm not saying that a Marine or soldier is supposed to be barbaric, but good heavens, combat is not randori.

Philosophizing about one's "graciousness" in battle is the domain of the retired general writing his memoirs. Within the auspices of the Geneva Conventions and the law of war, battle is only death and defeat is not an option.

In this context, winning IS the only thing.

Joseph Svinth
7th May 2001, 11:51
Fighter pilots, submarine captains, and generals frequently admit to enjoying war. Why? Put a physically courageous man on a fast horse, and frequently he becomes a centaur. As for generals, please -- even such a genuinely decent man as Robert E. Lee admitted that it was well that war was so terrible, otherwise he should grow too fond of it. Power corrupts and adrenaline is addictive, and during war (and especially maneuver warfare), that combination is a heady thing indeed.

Given this, war is a sport, as it distracts people from other, more mundane, topics such as work, religion, family, and, in the case of "Wag the Dog," the President's reported sexual misconduct.

As for combat being randori, it all depends on the enemy. During Christmas, 1914, on the Western Front, the Scots and Germans played a soccer game. Their generals were quite unhappy, but to the soldiers, this was a war between generals and politicians rather than working stiffs. And at the Somme eighteen months later, a British captain kicked off a day ending in 60,000 dead with a soccer ball and the cry, "Play up! And play the game!"

***

When thinking about war and sport, the comparison is not individual combative sports such as judo and fencing (cognate to dueling) but team combative sports such as lacrosse and American football (cognate to small-unit warfare). The larger game theory analogy is to chess, a war game in which the king cannot die, only abdicate. (As in real life, the lesser pieces probably do not enjoy dying, but that is no matter, they were only there for the amusement of the kings anyway.)

***

Meanwhile, in the Marine Corps, the defeat of the enemy is NOT the mission. The mission is duty. If your duty happens to involve the defeat of the enemy, no problem. Then you do whatever is authorized in your efforts to do so. Note that I say whatever is authorized, as in general there are rules of engagement (ROE) regulating what one can and cannot do. Thus a US sailor shooting a civilian in a Saigon bar in 1970 was generally considered a crime whereas a Navy SEAL shooting a civilian in a Hanoi bar as part of Phoenix generally was not.

On the other hand, if your duty happens to involve letting yourself get beat up (even to the point of requiring medical discharge) without providing any physical resistance, than that is also what you do. No kill or be killed is involved. If you doubt this, note that a couple years ago in Bosnia, the US Army nearly courtmartialed a soldier who shot a civilian who was beating him with a club, and simultaneously gave another soldier a medal because he ordered his men not to shoot during a similar situation. See Colonel Hays W. Parks, "Deadly Force Is Authorized," _Proceedings_, 126:1 (February 2001), 33-37, or online at http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles01/PROparks1.html .

Remember: while the way of the warrior may be the resolute acceptance of death, the way of the professional is the resolute acceptance of duty.

***

For insightful unofficial articles on the future of urban warfare, try "Our Soldiers, Their Cities" by Ralph Peters, in _Parameters_, at http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/parameters/96spring/peters.htm . For the enemy most likely found in those cities, see also Peters' "The New Warrior Class," also in _Parameters_, at http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/parameters/1994/peters.htm .

Soulend
8th May 2001, 03:35
I am well aware of addiction to adrenaline, and of General Lee's famous quote. I am also aware of men being burned out and psychologically shattered due to constant exposure to mortal danger. I never said that adrenaline was not addictive or power did not corrupt. This does not relate to the fact that war is not some damn game and your intimation that it is so belittles the billions that have fallen and disrespects their sacrifices.

LOL..."distracts people". Yes that it does, however not in quite the same way as football and soccer. As far as mutual enemies showing solidarity, this was also evident in the English and Germans singing Christmas carols together on Christmas eve, 1942. This is the act of men who are burned out by the rigors of battle and do not, in fact, hate each other. They kill because those are their orders. This does not mean that battle is a game.

<HTML>
<B>
"Meanwhile, in the Marine Corps, the defeat of the enemy is NOT the mission. The mission is duty. If your duty happens to involve the defeat of the enemy, no problem. Then you do whatever is authorized in your efforts to do so."</B>

Nearly 14 years ago, I was taught in boot camp that my mission was to 'locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and manuever'. Our former Commandant, General Krulak, said that our mission is 'to make Marines and win Battles'. Note that defeat of the enemy is not neccesarily shooting him. Protecting the innocent is defeating the enemy. Ensuring that refugees get adequate food and medicine is defeating the enemy. Ensuring that the mail arrives safely is defeating the enemy. As a GySgt in the Marine Corps, I don't need to be told my duty.

The contrived ROE devised by the politicians is not the fault of the Marine in the field, either in Bosnia, Vietnam, or in Beirut around the time I joined. This has no bearing on 'sportsmanship' or 'game'. This is the product of policymakers who have never faced an aggressive, violent enemy and never will.

When and where did you serve, Mr. Svinth? I am interested in the events that led to your perception that war is a sport and that we, as Marines, are sent to battle for the amusement of our superiors. War is a sport to the armchair general and to the academic. It is not so for the grunt in the field. I am quite shocked that a man of your apparent intellect could make such remarks. It is nice to know that our efforts are so appreciated, much as the efforts of the Dallas Cowboys or some such nonsence.

-David F. Craik
Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 251
MAG-31
Pawn to Generals and Jester to 'Kings'

kylanjh
8th May 2001, 14:40
I'm afraid I have to agree that war, like any human social activity, has rules. In that sense, it is a form of game, though a particularly deadly one. In some cases, sports are actually more dangerous than war - I remember reading somewhere that the death rate of German airborne troops while on vacation climbing in the Alps approached their death rate in the bloody air assault on Crete.

War is not just kill or be killed. If all that were at stake were life or death, more of us officers would be fragged, frankly. I can think of many instances when a man's officers were much more dangerous to him than his enemy - so why don't troops mutiny more often? I don't have a definitive answer, but I think it has to do with social rules. There are many things which have been and are more important than mere survival - honor, survival of a peer group, or just looking good. GySgt Craik spoke about defeating the enemy, and then offered us a number of caveats - for instance, that delivering the mail is a part of defeating the enemy. That's part of an ongoing debate in the Corps about "Warriors", and where Combat Support and Combat Service Support troops fall, but loosely, it's true - as true as the assertion that war is a form of game with certain rules. We aim to defeat the enemy within the constraints of our time, place, and culture. Why else did we lose the Vietnam War? Could we have won that war as the Romans won in Spain, over centuries, alternately using massacre and acculturation to achieve their objectives? Sure - but it would have taken a military dictatorship and significant changes in our culture, government, and even military. The same held true of the French knights lined up at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt. To actually defeat the enemy by any and all means necessary would have destroyed them and their social system - the same reason they couldn't adopt the crossbow, and had to be content chopping off the hands of captured crossbowmen. As it turns out, their social system was doomed anyway - but so, I suspect, is ours.

Frankly, the most interesting situations for an historian are those where two groups of people with different rules of war decide to play the game - the Japanese facing the Mongols (or anyone facing the Mongols, actually...) the Inca and the Spanish, Marcus Licinius Crassus facing the Parthians at Carrhae, or Xerxes' confident invasion of Greece. Rules which have evolved in one social and cultural context suddenly come into contact with rules designed for an entirely different environment, with shocking results for those involved.

Bottom line - sports and war are both contests, played with rules. Those rules change with time, place, and culture. Sometimes war has as many rules, perhaps unwritten but just as binding, as sports. Sports are often used as preparation for war; the ancient Greeks wrestled, football and cricket were Imperial Britain's sports of choice. The Aztecs played that strange ball game, where the losing (or perhaps the winning...) team was sacrificed and eaten. The samurai seem to have practiced warfare which was fairly individualistic, hence the individualistic character of most budo. I don't say this to disparage the soldiers who have fought for the United States or anyone else, and I don't think I have to have served in the military to say what I think about the military, either. I say it because it's the conclusion I've come to based on my experience and my reading.

Sincerely,

Kylan Jones-Huffman

Joseph Svinth
8th May 2001, 14:41
Safety in use:

Be careful saying bad things about elected officials on a public forum. As an enlisted person, you may be okay, but as a commissioned or warrant officer you could be found in violation of Article 88 of the UCMJ, which prohibits contempt toward elected officials. (Truth is no defense against the charge.)

My military experience:

I served in the Marine Corps from 1975-1980. Back then, it didn't matter how stoned or hung-over you were, the bottom line was accomplishment of the mission. Welfare of the men was given lip service, but that was all it was given; with 3-4 courts-martial per month and about ten times that many non-judicial punishments in an engineer company of 108 lost souls, we weren't even the worst company in the battalion. Discipline would be had, by God, or court-martial would follow: the battalion commander was 36, and without a war in which to be a hero, he was afraid he would not become a full colonel before he was 40.

From 1978-1980, I served on embassy duty in Iran and South Africa, and at Marine Security Guard school during the summer of 1978 the battalion commander gave us a blood'n'thunder speech in which he said, "No one denies your right to self-defense. No one denies me my right to court-martial you, either. So every time you pull the trigger, assume it's five more years in Leavenworth."

We then had an officer, whom I presume came from JAG, describe the fates of various Marines who went to the aid of civilians (both foreign and US) and were accordingly relieved for cause. Why? Because aiding women being beat up on the front door of the consulate wasn't part of the post orders. If this sounds silly, well, check the orders and you will find that Marine Security Guards are there to protect classified material and equipment, not people, and from a physical security standpoint, it's too easy to distract the guard from his primary role by simply organizing a little disturbance out front.

From 1984 to 1996, I served fulltime with the Army National Guard. Among other things, I was the operations NCO for the headquarters company of a separate infantry brigade. In the process of writing the training SOP for the MP platoon, I spent a lot of time talking to the Brigade JAG, the Brigade staff, and various colonels who became brigade commanders. After all, the purpose of an SOP is to get the privates to do what the general wants rather than what the book says. Bottom line? Never embarrass the boss in front of his superiors, and those civilians with their pesky rules of engagement are the general's superiors. So at the corporate level it is preferable that you be killed than the general (or worse: governor, ambassador, or president) be forced to issue a public apology because of your mishandling of a situation. After all, if you're dead, then the chain of command can wrap you in a flag and carry you to the White House, but if the mother of some civilian you shot by mistake is interviewed by CNN, then the general's promotion and the politician's reelection chances just went down the toilet.

Anyway -- Body count, planes shot down, ships sunk, targets destroyed, numbers of wounds received, what are they but box scores? (Nineteenth century concept, introduced to sell papers. Works to this day, so it was a good one.)

Now, all that said, don't worry, Chevron Oil agrees with you that the Great Game as a description of geopolitics is incorrect. Instead, Chevron's preferred term is "the Great Gain." See http://www.chevron.com/newsvs/speeches/2000/2000-09-19.html . Now, this is not really news. After all, Smedley Butler said the same thing as far back as the 1930s. Said General Butler: "I spent 33 years [in the Marines] . . . most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. . . I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City (Bank) boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. . . . In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested . . . I had . . . a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, promotions.... I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three city districts. The Marines operated on three continents." http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/smedley.htm It's just refreshing to see the corporations starting to be equally honest about it. The military is starting to admit it, too. Thus fighter pilot Col. Scott Sonnenberg, USAF, describing what he does for a living in Marine Corps Gazette, May 2001, page 48: "I'm a highly trained, intelligent, sophisticated killer with a conscience..."

***

Is there anything wrong with being a hired killer with a conscience? I hope not, as by Colonel Sonnenberg's standards, that is what I was, my wife was, and my brother-in-law is. And even if it is wrong, well, as Butler said, it can be a swell racket. Either way, I believe that a person needs to know in advance what s/he is willing to kill for, die for, and live with afterwards, and that spouting Social Darwinist rhetoric such as "kill or be killed" is hardly conducive to fostering intelligent debate on the topic.

Soulend
8th May 2001, 21:28
I suspect that Art. 88 would be rather difficult to stick. As mentioned, I am not a commissioned officer. Also, 'contempt' would be extremely hard to prove from the the paragraph I wrote. I mentioned no specific individuals nor their offices. I didn't get to be a curmudgeonly ol' gunny by being reckless..but I do appreciate the warning. :)

As to the 'Kill or be Killed', I never used that phrase. The only person to use that phrase in this thread is Mr. Svinth. Perhaps I am just not quite as embittered and jaded by my experiences as Mr. Svinth appears to be, and thus perhaps a bit idealistic.

If the inclusion of rules in any human endeavor render it a game, fine. War is a game. I would only add that it only appears game-like to the men who move the pieces (to use the chess analogy), and to those that have never played it.

The protection of the mail I spoke of is not any new, current debate. I was referring to Nicaragua in the 1920's. Mr. or Ms. Jones-Huffman (sorry, I see in your profile that you are a Naval officer, but I don't know your rank), you are quite correct that your experience should enable you to comment on warfare. Perhaps you could enlighten us further with personal anecdotes of the battles in which you have fought and commanded. I am certain that with the depth of your historical knowledge,
some of these things could be put in context.

I only wish that I had done a search on google.com and could thus lace my post with quotes from obscure officers that would elucidate my points, however, if one searches hard enough, one can prove nearly any point of view since in the thousands of years of man's existance, someone somewhere has expressed a feeling that is similar to our own.

At any rate, I'm off. The next time I visit a VA hospital or Disabled Veterans of America function I must make a point of asking the men if they enjoyed their 'game'.

kylanjh
8th May 2001, 23:09
Ahhh, an ironic gunnery sergeant. Sorry for not amplifying my profile, but since you ask, it's Mr. and LT - not that I think it matters overly much, certainly not here. I suspect our takes on the nature of war have as much to do with service branch as they do with anything else. I was trained to kill ships, not people (well, not primarily) and I always considered ops around the Chinese, Russians, or Iranians to be something of a game, less dangerous than in wartime perhaps. Maybe I'd feel differently if I had been on the Stark or the Roberts... but maybe I'd still see things analytically. Hard to say.

I'm sorry if my historical perspective drives you to sarcasm, but it's an occupational hazard of being an historian. Most of the time, I wish my students were paying enough attention to get upset, or that they knew what sarcasm was... still, feel free to dismiss me because I'm not a combat veteran. The fact remains that there are lots of examples of people who considered war the ultimate extreme sport, and I'm sure there are lots of people who would take offense at that notion. Not all the sporting folks were officers, and not all the serious ones were grunts, either. If we can't take from other people's words and experiences, but are reduced to our own feelings alone, how can we ever say anything about anything? You can't debate the experiences of anyone else, and your experience is uncommunicable? You are correct that you can find an example of almost anything in history someplace - human culture is pretty darned full of variety. It's a question of how many people have expressed those opinons, and how representative they are, or were.

Ultimately, it sounds like we are having a semantics problem more than anything else. You don't like the connotations of the words "game" and "sport" applied to war. I think they have some interesting similarities, and that both similarities and differences are worth talking about. Would you prefer to talk about it as a contest?

As far as "kill or be killed," sorry if I implied that you had said that when you hadn't. However, what you did say, "...In sport, say a Judo match, both parties are combatants. Within the constraints of the tournament, each tries to win over the other. The law of war does not apply, unless the judoka decides to start attacking the spectators. In battle, one prevails by any means neccesary, fair or foul, against the adversary. There is not the luxury of 'the enemy is falling back, let's let them go', or something similar. Outside of unneccesary cruelty or engaging noncombatants one must exploit every opportunity..." sounds right in line with that "kill or be killed" philosophy. It also sounds very late 20th century conservative American military. Again, I could bring up some historical counter-examples, but they often involve generals, and thus are apparently not valid... ;)

Sincerely,

LT Kylan Jones-Huffman
History Department, U.S. Naval Academy (I know, I've damned myself in the eyes of any real Marine...)
USS Raven (MHC 61)
USS Ingraham (FFG 61)

Soulend
9th May 2001, 02:45
Hope you didn't take offense, Lt. Knew I should have had my wife proof read my post first. Perhaps my little 'Parthian shot' (ah! history!) at the end was a bit much. Actually I envy your knowledge, and wish more in our line of work had as broad a perspective.

Naturally, the 'kill or be killed' mindset doesn't apply in all operations. But I think perhaps it may be the best one to have when in conventional, 'there's the enemy, kill him' type combat. Maybe it will be the attitude that saves you. Or perhaps kill you. I like to think that the samurai would have approved of it though :)

I don't know what I would classify war as, it just seems that 'game' or even 'contest' somewhat belittle the magnitude and gravity of it.

What a neat place e-budo is. Where else can you find UFC, basketball, Mongols, warfighting doctrine, and the possibility of prosecution under the UCMJ in the same thread within paragraphs of each other?

At any rate, I'll shut up now. What started as a comment has ended up being an essay. I'm off to the lounge for a little lighter reading...

Joseph Svinth
9th May 2001, 05:16
Game, meaning 1a: "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement." (Wag the Dog certainly constitutes war for diversion.) 2a: "A procedure or strategy for gaining an end: TACTIC." Meaning 3a(1): "a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other." At 5b we finally get to organized athletics, but that's a long way down the list.

Such definitions (and the contradictions inherent in them) lead to me to wonder how other cultures view all this. For example, dictionary definitions of the German word "Kampf" include combat, sports competition, a boxer's ring experience, wrestling, and a conflict of opinion. "Spiel" meanwhile means "game," but with a subtext of gambling, often to the accompaniment of brass bands. (The root is "to revel," actually.) "Kriegsspiel" ("war game") was invented by the Prussian general staff as a way of modeling warfare in the Napoleonic era, and over time the concept evolved into Avalon Hill board games. Today computers do the calculations, but back then, the outcome was determined literally upon the roll of die. So, to the Germans, at least, gambling games and war do not seem to be entirely unrelated topics.

Be that as it may, who determines the the "proper" perspective? The privates? Mom? The generals and politicians? Newspapers? Or oneself?

MarkF
9th May 2001, 10:33
Originally posted by Soulend
I only wish that I had done a search on google.com and could thus lace my post with quotes from obscure officers that would elucidate my points, however, if one searches hard enough, one can prove nearly any point of view since in the thousands of years of man's existance, someone somewhere has expressed a feeling that is similar to our own.

At any rate, I'm off. The next time I visit a VA hospital or Disabled Veterans of America function I must make a point of asking the men if they enjoyed their 'game'.





I've followed this thread but stayed out of the discussion because I'm one of the 1-O people who, according to some, either spat on the conscripts during the war in Viet Nam or the one spat upon, according to others, because I fought for my beliefs. I simply felt I could offer no plausible good to the armed forces and stayed away.

Either way, in this discussion, I'm screwed, because I enjoyed the combativeness of the judo matches for twenty years, yet was not so stupid as to think the conscripts were involved because they volunteered to be one by accepting it in favor of jail or flight.
******

But frankly, I wish Gunnery Sergeant Craik had used Google as well. I also think the next time he visits the VA hospital, and explains or shows them in what fashion the people here were describing war as a "game" or "sport," I doubt there would be many who would disagree.

All through history, the consripts are offered up as so much cannon fodder, and it continues up to the present. The difference now is a voluntary one and wars are played out at a much further distance with far less death and destruction for "our" side.
*****

My take on the is thread was only one of how far people go to get off on an adrenaline high, and how far one would go to place blame for it. It did begin with judo matches and MMA and ended by someone who didn't see a discussion, but saw or felt he, in some way, was doing the right thing and was unappreciated for it, or rearranged and censored it so as to make it seem as though the people involved were doing the same thing I have been accused of, and still am, to this day.

I don't see where anyone said or inferred that war over life and death was *only* a game, but only comments from those who saw it in his own reality.

Take the judo matches, stretch hard, apply the same rules, and it can be expanded to a description of war and agents of war, and no, there isn't anything humorous, but certainly holds interest in that most here have done some sort of budo, and have at least a vague notion of samurai and captains.

"Playing war" with small replicas doesn't go away because we become adults, rather we play the adult form of war, which is costly sometimes, and no matter what the reason, it isn't pretty.

To quote Steve Martin: "Comedy is not pretty." I wonder where he got that?

Mark

PS: I read somewhere a few years ago a statistic about professional soldiers and that a career in the Armed Forces, discounting all sorts of war or police actions abroad (IOW, someone who never leaves his country and never sees any "action"), is four times more likely to die while employed than in in any other job, discounting the Post Office, of course.:D

kylanjh
9th May 2001, 14:37
To gunny Craik - certainly no offense taken. That's the great part about honest conversation - we get the opportunity to review and maybe revise our opinions based on perspectives we hadn't thought of. That said, I'm going to drop the whole rank thing...

As far as etymology goes, Mr. Svinth writes: "Such definitions (and the contradictions inherent in them) lead to me to wonder how other cultures view all this. For example, dictionary definitions of the German word "Kampf" include combat, sports competition, a boxer's ring experience, wrestling, and a conflict of opinion. "Spiel" meanwhile means "game," but with a subtext of gambling, often to the accompaniment of brass bands. (The root is "to revel," actually.)" Personally, I've always preferred the German word for battle, Schlacht, with its connotation of slaughter, butchery, and massacre.

For Mr. Feigenbaum's sake I did go back to look at the first posts in this thread, on good sportsmanship, and I don't think we've strayed all that far. After all, budo, especially koryu, were intended as preparation for war, or at the least duelling (sometimes it's hard to tell the difference...) The rules of war, which vary immensely by culture, are certainly rules, but they aren't necessarily terribly "sporting", even where they are fairly ritualized. It reminds me of some thoughtful passages in Ellis Amdur's new book on the bloody heritage of martial arts, which leads me to agree (I think) with Mr. Craik that we can talk more about sportsmanship the less "serious," eg. life-and-death, the competition. Also, I do agree that there is a difference in outlook between the volunteer and the conscript, between the warrior who fights as a way of life, and the soldier who fights when he has to, out of a sense of duty or obligation.

Well, I'm just rambling now, so I'll shut up.

Kylan Jones-Huffman

Soulend
10th May 2001, 07:41
At least I can always serve as a bad example here on e-budo. It would seem that one's point of view on any given subject differs according to one's experiences and upbringing.

I must apologize for not doing the Google thing yet again, but I am reasonably familiar with the opinions of those people that I have respect for (though I must admit the Smedley D. Butler quote was an eye-opener!). As I said before, a quote can be found to support nearly any POV, so I consider an exchange of someone else's aphorisms to be in many cases pointless. I may however do an advanced search to find out precisely how many times a person's opinion has been changed by a barrage of historical anecdotes. That may be interesting.

It was only my intention to remark on the Marine Corps martial arts program and that I felt a difference exists between sportsmanship as it applies to sport and the conduct of war as it applies to well, war. Of course the thread drifted from it's original premise, as threads tend to do. I did "see a discussion" and thought that as a member of e-budo and having a little knowledge about the USMC Martial Arts Program(which was mentioned) and the Marines in general (which was also mentioned) I was allowed to join in that discussion. Guess I was wrong.

I quite enjoy the path I have chosen for myself and sometimes it may seem that I am saying "Look at how noble I am! Respect me!" or some crap like that, but that isn't what I'm trying to say at all. Don't really care about appreciation or lack thereof 'cause I draw a paycheck twice a month for what I do. Being 'gung-ho' comes with the inherent danger of being viewed as a saber-rattler or a person looking for praise sometimes.

I must apologize if I "censored and rearranged" anyone's comments. I have a hard enough time arranging my own, and they are still mostly misunderstood.

I haven't visited a VA hospital since this thread began, but I did pass the link to this board along to my father-in-law, retired now from the military and a Vietnam veteran. I respect his opinion, and figured he could set me straight if I was out of line. He liked my posts, but was considerably more, um, 'verbally picturesque' with regards to some of the others. At least there's someone out there as screwed-up and wrong-headed as I am.

At any rate, Mr. Feigenbaum, we seem pretty much doomed to disagree on every point brought up on any subject. Since our first meeting in the Koryu board a long time ago. C'est la vie. Your points brought up here are noted and taken in context.

Of course I agree that the volunteer and the conscript are going to have a vastly different outlook. Since I have never been drafted I can't speak from his viewpoint. Don't know what the draft has to do with the discussion at hand either, but it's late, so I am likely missing something. Yes, war is horrible. I would prefer a few hands of blackjack. And the statistic concerning the longevity of us lifers sounds plausible. If I was that concerned about when I die I would have gotten into another profession. Of course, the upshot is the sooner I expire the fewer of my posts you'll have to read. Yay!

Ouch it's late. Good post Lieutenant. I couldn't agree with you more. Maybe we did only had a semantics difference after all :)

-Cheers,
David F. Craik

Neil Hawkins
11th May 2001, 08:35
I started this, and have been watching the exchanges with interest. The points from both sides are good and I don't necessarily agree with either or neither.

To me the words are not really imprtant, the concept of 'good spotsmanship' can be applied to any endeavour, wether it be sport or martial arts or something more deadly.

Whilst war does not necessarily lend itself to comparisons with sport (or games), I do believe that the ideals of morality, consideration for your opponent, respect for your opponent and so on, do have a place in the military psyche. It is why we have codes of conduct, rules of engagement, the Geneva Convention and so on.

I agree that in close combat you do need to consider survival above all things, but honestly, how often are troops placed in this position today? The large percentage of deployments are police actions, aids to civil powers, peacekeeping and such like where there is a very real need for controlled, appropriate action.

Perhaps we need to get back to looking at what we consider 'good sportsmanship' to mean. What are the qualities we look for?

Once we have a definition we can then discuss how or where it should be applied. When it is appropriate and when it isn't. We probably have very different concepts, which is why we are coming at this from opposing directions. Some good stuff has come out though, so let's circle around the stumbling block and see what comes of it.

Regards

Neil

Joseph Svinth
13th May 2001, 04:11
Viewpoint 1. From "Tips for Coaches" by Carleton Kendrick at
http://www.familyeducation.com/article/0,1120,20-16725-0-2,00.html

BEGIN QUOTE

Coaches nurture good sportsmanship. They should embody parents' values regarding good sportsmanship. A coach must model good sportsmanship at every level and make it a core goal of his work with kids.

I recommend that every youth sports coach engage his players in a detailed discussion of good sportsmanship as soon as he forms his team. A written contract, perhaps titled The Good Sportsmanship Code, should be given to every child and his parent to sign. The contract should spell out what the coach expects from each player in terms of good sportsmanship, including the following areas:

Cheating
Losing one's temper
Negative criticism of teammates, coaches, referees, and opposing players
Blaming teammates for mistakes or a poor team performance
“Trash talk” and taunting opponents
Showboating
Arguing referees' calls and judgments
The need to congratulate one's opponents after a game

Coaching children is an honor and a privilege that carries with it a moral responsibility to contribute to the healthy character development of young players.

Coaches who equate "trying your best" as the definition of success -- and who value, expect, and demand good sportsmanship from their players -- help shape the moral, ethical, and spiritual character of children.

Communicate often with your child's coach to make sure he takes this responsibility seriously.

CLOSE QUOTE

Viewpoint 2, from George Orwell:

"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting."

Test Question: Based on your knowledge of human nature and society, is it possible that people often have different expectations of proper behavior, especially within a group and without? If so, is it fair to insist that people who are not part of our group compete by our group's rules? Or is it a form of egotism on the part of individuals, and cultural imperialism on the part of organizations?

kylanjh
14th May 2001, 19:20
Originally posted by Joseph Svinth


Viewpoint 2, from George Orwell:

"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting."

Test Question: Based on your knowledge of human nature and society, is it possible that people often have different expectations of proper behavior, especially within a group and without? If so, is it fair to insist that people who are not part of our group compete by our group's rules? Or is it a form of egotism on the part of individuals, and cultural imperialism on the part of organizations?

In answer to the test question, yes it is possible, and the answer to the second part depends on which group you are talking about. Is it reasonable to expect that York High School, Salinas High School, and Monterey High School all play soccer by the same rules? Yes - as long as you don't expect their rugby teams to play by soccer rules.

I agree with Orwell to an extent. However, I don't think that any institution which only exhibits those traits he itemizes can long continue to exist. Martial arts are a practice, as is playing chess, playing the cello, or practicing medicine. In order for such practices to exist and evolve through time, they require the practice of certain virtues - truthfulness, justice, and courage being high on that list (if you think I'm cribbing from Alasdair MacIntyre, you're right...) However, the practice of martial arts has to be differentiated from the institutions which perpetuate certain ryu or ryuha. Just as a chess club, hospital, or symphony orchestra may do a better or worse job of perpetuating those practices, or even implode because of personal hatreds, jealousy, and disregard of the rules, different dojo do a better or worse job with martial arts. The problem is, sometimes what is required to keep a dojo (or hospital, orchestra, or chess club) running may be antithetical to the virtues which further development in the art being practiced.

If practicioners of all sports or competetive arts (if you think budo is competetive, try medical school!) acted as Orwell describes, there wouldn't be any arts to pass on. Why study with people who are out to get you, to injure you deliberately in class for no purpose? Why learn from a teacher who lies to you, or deliberately misleads you to your detriment? Why learn in a place which places money above the intangible value you get from doing something well and fairly? Those intangible values, I would argue, include something like what we are calling good sportsmanship here. Without them, you are left with a shell, like the hospital where there are too few doctors (have to keep it profitable!) and too many patients (keep the money coming in), where procedures are dictated by accountants. In that case, you aren't truly practicing medicine - and the same goes for martial arts. Whatever you do to people outside the group, within the group you must display some measure of virtue - if you don't, you will shortly have no group to continue your art. And if you display virtue within a group, it is just as easy to display it to those outside the group.

Well, I've rambled enough. Hope someone can make sense out of it ;)

Kylan Jones-Huffman