Interesting comparison between Krav Maga and the politics of war

[Bill Mattocks]

Just thought it interesting. Don't necessarily agree with it, but some interesting points made nonetheless...

Click the link to read the whole thing; it's short.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/mar/04/libresco-the-offense-of-disengagement/

Libresco: The offense of disengagement


By Leah Libresco
Staff Columnist
Friday, March 4, 2011

In Krav Maga, the martial art used by the Israeli Defense Forces, offense is the only defense. The Israeli instructor hosted last week by Yale Friends of Israel, Yale Espionage Society and the Yale Karate Club opened his class by explaining, “Self-defense is just a legal term. If you want to get out of a fight, you have to be on the attack or you’ll lose.”

 

[Bruno@MT]

The part you quoted is taken way out of context. Looking at the quote alone, you'd think they advocate extreme violence as the first and only approach to any problem, which is not the case.

The dismissal 'self defense is only a legal term' is a way of saying 'forget about the consequences'. Both in personal conflict scenarios as in international politics, this isn't a real option if you will be held accountable by either the courts system, the war crimes tribunal or just simply public opinion and international boycot.

Another quote from the linked article says the complete opposite btw, so I don't really know what point they are trying to make.

... should take a lesson from the Krav Maga instructor who told us the best possible outcome is avoiding a fight altogether. “You have to be assertive,” he told us, “but aggression will only guarantee you have to strike.”

 

[Empty Hands]

The instructor should keep in mind that counter-punching is a very effective strategy. To attack, you must open yourself up. I don't know that that necessarily carries over to matters of war, but it does complicate the analogy.

 

[granfire]

maybe it's just that we have become too worried about getting suit, it's not even funny anymore.

Something like: don't pick the fight, but when it's inevidable, make sure you strike first and hard? Worry later....

It's those times when I realize I lived here too long when I start questioning my actions or instincts because there could be legal repercussions should something go wrong.

And I am talking about stuff like giving a kid a ride...

 

[K-man]

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

Sun Tzu​

He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious.
Sun Szu​

If you don't need to fight don't, if you do need to fight, hit first, hit hard and hit often.

You are what you train. If you train to defend you will probably lose.​

If you are worrying that the guy threatening you will get you back later if you hurt him now, either you shouldn't be fighting or the chances are, he will hurt you.​

I'm not too sure as to the validity of the link to warfare. :asian:​

​

​

 

[girlbug2]

Street self defense compared to war in the middle east makes for a bad analogy. The motives and objectives are completely different from one to another.