Japan produced one genius swordsman and tactician: Miyamoto Musashi. He discovered something that had been lost in the West since the days of the Spartans (the Battle of Thermopylae): namely that a vastly superior force will overwhelm you, but they will have a hard time doing it because they will get in each other's way. They will be impaired by their great number. Is this principle still applicable in modern warfare? We think it is!

Musashi was used to fight against many foes simultaneously. What we call his duels were often bouts fought one against five or ten, in one occasion he fought a whole swordsman's school: alone against 100 assailants. His motto was not to be afraid to have ten enemies (then he had the skill to fight them all simultaneously). He used to say that if you only have two or three enemies, there is clearly room for more. The Japanese style of fighting with swords and the martial arts in general are particularly well suited to fight one against many. The circular slashing movements of the katana for example allow you to wound or kill many opponents with a single strike, while experienced swordsmen can conjure a barrage of blows that would keep an army of attackers at bay. Even empty handed and hand to hand fighting systems like karate are thought to fight against many opponents through circular movements: especially the circular kicks.

Let's get back to Musashi's famous duel against a whole martial arts' school. He found out that if 100 of the enemy surround you, they cannot all strike at you at the same time. At first, only five or six of the enemy will be able to reach you, the others will get in each other's way. So, you will have to fight and dispatch this first wave of attackers, before meeting the second and the third ones. If you don't want to get finally overwhelmed and killed,  it would be wise after having taken care of the first rank of attackers, to find a way to break the circle and escape. While the enemy will pursue you, you'll perhaps get the chance to kill a few more in the process, if you are lucky. Since the pursuers had different speeds, Musashi could kill them one by one, as they presented themselves one at a time. It was a mad run that ended in a fierce fighting in the rice-fields and the rice-swamps. In the end, Musashi escaped having killed 20.

Musashi was well known as a Dojo breaker. He would kill the headmaster or his assistant in single combat (possibly after having challenged them days in advance) and the survivors would have to close down the martial arts' school because they couldn't bear the shame of defeat. He closed down dozens of schools in that way. What enraged known and well established masters is that Musashi had no technique really (nothing orthodox anyway, his Niten two swords approach was more improvisation than anything), had studied under no reputable master, and this bum relished in provoking, beating and humiliating the best. In a nation of followers like Japan at the time, where everybody obeys without question, a rebel, loner and delinquent individualist like Musashi is very uncommon. Such people are so rare, that they are made instantly heroes. That is what happened to Musashi. Someone who would have been branded a mere bum in the West is celebrated like a hero since 400 years.

But Musashi is also a genius, his Book of five Rings proves it. There are invaluable lessons of tactics in it. What he calls strategy would be better known as tactics in the West. Then the book is all about single combat and skirmishes and the frame of mind the warrior must have in those moments. Although he stresses that the same principles apply in large battles opposing masses of combatants, one can doubt that it is really the same; therefore the difference made in the West between tactics and strategy. Apart from that, the book is priceless in its depiction of the proper living and fighting attitude of the combatant. The lessons in those chapters are timeless.

Finally, does the problem IN EACH OTHER'S WAY exist in modern times? We can think of several examples: a crossfire that degenerates into friendly fire in recent military operations, hunters that get in each other's way leading to hunting accidents (he mistook him for a deer), large police operations that go wrong, a large searching party that makes a mistake allowing the convict to slip away, etc... Lucky that most escape convicts and hunted animals didn't read Musashi's Book of five rings. If they would have, the hunt would be that much more difficult and it would perhaps be the hunting party that suddenly becomes fair game. Who knows, following Musashi's example, a rogue dear or bear may decide to collect human trophies some day.

Special Forces have come to prominence as governments have found that some objectives can be better achieved by a small team of anonymous specialists, rather than by a larger conventional deployment. Special operations forces are military units formed and trained to conduct missions of unconventional warfare, counter-terrorism, reconnaissance, direct action, and infiltration. They typically comprise relatively small groups of highly-trained soldiers who are armed and supplied with specialised equipment, and operate upon the principles of self-sufficiency, stealth, speed, and close teamwork.

As their work is often performed covertly and involves classified information, candidates are put through extensive trials prior to acceptance with extremely high attrition rates. Because they may work with intelligence agencies on a regular basis, they must also get the necessary security clearance. They may be used to train foreign local forces when military aid is given to other countries, so that much of their specialised training includes language and cultural skills. Due to the secrecy surrounding much of their training and work, special operations forces have a mystique and aura of mystery about them, and have frequently been the topic of military fiction and action movies. They have a high profile in popular culture and the media.

Special operations forces have played an important role in the history of warfare: they specialised in reconnaissance and skirmishing, using unconventional infiltration tactics, and were more often used when the aim was to achieve disruption by "hit and run" and sabotage, rather than more traditional combat. Other significant roles lay in providing essential intelligence from close to or among the enemy, and increasingly in combating terrorists' infrastructure and activities.

List of the main (most famous) United States Special Operations Forces

Counter-Terrorist Units
1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (SFOD-D) "Delta Force"
Navy Special Warfare Development Group "DEVGRU"

United-States Army
Army Special Forces ''Green Berets''
75th Ranger Regiment ''Rangers'' (Airborne)
160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) ''Night Stalkers''

United States Navy
SEAL Teams     (SEa, Air, Land (SEAL) Teams = Navy Seals)

United States Marine Corps
Scout Snipers

Intelligence Community Special Units
Special Activities Staff - Central Intelligence Agency

All are small, elite units that can operate far behind enemy lines on sabotage, reconnaissance, and counter-insurgency missions. Most have extensive airborne training.

Some critics say that special forces are a bit overrated now, that there is something wrong in relying too much on special units; that if normal or mainstream units were better trained, there wouldn't be any need for all that ''special'' stuff. And they are right! No one doubts that the nature of war has changed, but there is an unhealthy modern tendency to glorify spectacular missions, very high-tech but with limited objectives, corresponding to the popular motto "get in-get out''. Is this ''show off'' a way to forget that modern wars have been lost by world powers in the second half of the XXth century (Afghanistan and Vietnam) for the wrong reasons? The danger is to practice spectacular tactics, but perhaps rotten startegy. All that special display can't win a war, but it may help if the main effort is consequent and strong enough.

"Get in-get out''. When we talk about exit strategies and extraction in modern warfare, it could mean only two things: the enemy has not been entirely subdued (population not pacified) and the environment is still hostile (not secured). We ought to remember that war is not a video-game. With the Vietnam war something has been forgotten: that after the fighting is over, the troops wait until relief comes, they relinquish power to the civil authorities and go home. For that, the war must have been concluded successfully, that is: the peace established. Only then, can they say mission completed. After Vietnam a bad habit was creeping in: it was to say ''mission accomplished'' much too soon!

PENCIL PUSHERS
2006-10-02

In every country there is the president, the vice-president and the prime minister; there are also the high members of the cabinet: the ministers. But beside this generally elected body, there is another group of people just as powerful and influential we call the high bureaucrats or technocrats. These are the pencil pushers. They come to power sometimes through competence, but most of the time they are the protégés of someone else high up, or they reach their position by the skillful practice of the noble art of brownnosing (see the article about brownnosing).

It is more complicated than that though, then some high-ranking bureaucrats are appointed by politicians and the government for outstanding achievement in other fields of activity. So they are not all incompetent or totally self-serving, but a majority of pencil pushers are. As a rule of thumb most of the assistant- or deputy something in the hierarchy are pencil pushers. And what exactly is a pencil pusher? It is someone who holds a position of power but is not accountable for his mistakes. Someone else will pay for it. It is someone who serves his own interests first and his country second. It is someone who will never leave his office, never go on site before making decisions that will affect other parts of the country or the world. But he is not that bad, then sometimes (if he feels like it, if the conditions are right, and if he got nothing to loose) he will selflessly take the right decision, for once!

Pencil pushers are those who decide of war and peace, of economic development and foreign aid, of all the desirable social changes the society must go through. It is not that they got the effective external political power, but they got the power of influence; they are the so-called experts, the ones sought for- and giving advice. In other words, the president or prime minister may say this and that, may seem to make important decisions, but who got the reality of power?

American pencil pushers are the ones who advocated intervention in Vietnam, favored the war in Iraq, etc... Locked in their offices in the fortified Green Zone they decide what should happen in the field. In Iraq, the war could have been won, but for that it would have been necessary to go to the villages, cities and provinces outside Baghdad. The recipe to lose the war was a Baghdad-centered effort, then "the war will certainly be lost in Baghdad".

Troops all over the world will die doing the bidding of pencil pushers (sometimes remarkable theoreticians, knowledgeable people, but that have cut themselves from reality). Sometimes the pencil pushers are ignorant and incompetent, but either brilliant minds or incompetents will hurt the troops and their country. How can the simple soldier, lower rank officers and even middle rank ones protect themselves from pencil pushers. There is discipline and they must obey orders; it is not their place to question them. But still they can voice their concern through the chain of command, and a colonel or general has the license to ask precision about a directive or a command. Then again, if high-ranking officers act in complicity with the pencil pushers, there is little that the lower ranks can do, except to die for the wrong reason or disobey (which is treason in times of war).

There is one moment and one hope though when pencil pushers can be punished: it is during a successful rebellion or revolution, when pencil pushers can be identified, seized, put in front of a firing squad and shot. The other privileged moment of revenge would be during a foreign invasion when they can be denounced and put in front of the firing squad for the same reasons and result. In such times of unrest the little guy has his chance for revenge, while the powerful ones become uneasy and experience fear. Pencil pushers thrive in times of peace, while underprivileged get their chance at becoming one of them in times of trouble.

What is bravery? Is it when the best man wins? Can sometimes the vanquished (the loser in modern lingo) be also called brave? And, the most controversial of all, can sometimes the winner, the victor be called a coward, when unfair advantages (like more advanced technology, more numerous troops, more money, a broader industrial base, etc...) contributed to his victory and he or she took no risk at all during the whole campaign? Has the vanquished who knew there was no chance of victory, but fought nonetheless, more right to claim bravery? Of course, colonel Custer and Yoshitsune come immediately to mind.

If this concept is so important, it is because both sides in a war will claim that their troops have it, that their side has it. It is a morale- and an ego booster. And is it not just another way to say that their cause is just, that they are right and that the enemy is wrong? But what is bravery? It is displaying courage, resolution and daring in real life, not just the battlefield. Daring, eh! It means that it entails a fair amount of risk taking and uncertainty. So, no sure thing then could be called a real feat of bravery. Remarkable, skillful, but if there is no amount of risk to it, an action cannot be called brave. Let us give some examples.

A master marksman shoots a sitting duck at 1000 meter and is right on target. Remarkable, yes. A feat of bravery, it all depends. What was the risk if he would have missed? To him personally: none (sitting ducks don't fight back), to his ego: a bruise, to his wallet (if he had taken a bet): maybe a substantial loss. Further examples: a hunting party is shooting wolves from an helicopter with automatic rifles, even with a submachine gun. Now could this be called brave? Hardly, remember that part of the definition mentioning risk taking. Now, listen to that one: a chivalrous British adventurer has heard tales about hunting a bear with a mere lance, something that was rarely practiced by some aboriginal tribes in Canada and in the Innu country. He decides to try it. After finding a guide that tells him how crazy the whole idea is, he really does it. Now, we're talking. A big risk (no guns), even with a long lance and a foot long blade, the hunted animal has more than a fair chance to kill the hunter. If he comes alive out of it our Englishman has every right to boast. Bravery? Certainly. Foolhardiness? Perhaps, yes.

Let us return to military affairs now. It is possible that an average officer carries his duty efficiently every day, gets promoted from time to time, has on the whole an honorable career, gets his pension after an honorable discharge, and lives happily ever after (taking care of his garden and his grandchildren). Now that is what happens to most officers in most armies around the world. Duty carried out? certainly. Service rendered to the country, state or city? undoubtedly. Bravery? ... well, hardly! There is here the same difference between saying that Mr. X is a brave man and that he accomplished feats of bravery. It is clearly not the same. Does it mean that to be called brave in that sense, one has to take risks occasionally, perhaps daily? The answer is yes.

Studying the history of the last three centuries, one cannot help but notice that not all commanders took personal risks on the battlefield. In fact those who did were more the exception than the rule. One can think of several examples like Patton shooting at attacking planes with a mere pistol, Ney and Murat charging at the head of their troops in Napoleonic times, certain German generals of WW1 and WW2 refusing to take cover under heavy fire and continuing to lead their troops and observing things first hand through their binoculars, there are also some instances of these generals taking part in the action personally. Napoleon, for one, war very dashy and daring in his youth, but with age he preferred to observe things from the top of a hill at a safe distance of the actual fighting, and the only risk for him would then have been a stray bullet or a cannon ball with an extra-long trajectory. Lucky that the weapons of the time didn't have the range!

So, according to this traditional definition of bravery, there is more chance to find it in the lower ranks of the army (private soldiers, noncommissioned officers) and in the middle ranks, than in in the upper ones. This is quite understandable, since the lower ranks are put more often into physical danger due to their greater proximity to the enemy, and because they are the ones engaging it. General officers at high-command and HQ will rarely be in real danger, therefore the lesser chance for them to display valour. This reflects itself of course in the number of medals for bravery awarded to the troops. In any army with an equitable system, the most part will go to the lower ranks.

If we come back to modern armies, the main problem faced by advanced (rich) countries in conflicts with Third World people is that technology and much more money gives them such an unfair advantage that soldiers of such world- or regional powers have a very hard time to display real bravery. For example, the soldier in his tank or armoured personal carrier facing an angry unarmed crowd has absolutely no risk to himself, so has the pilot targeting a building in a country with no anti-aircraft capability. The worst that can happen to them in a very hot day, is a breakdown of the air conditioning system! The sad reality is that technology, techniques and procedures have taken away most of the risks that were earlier part of military- and law enforcement life. For example, a major police deployment with the closing down of a whole district, involving sometimes as much as 50 to 100 policemen, with SWAT teams, tactical helicopters, etc... to answer a call about possibly one armed man in an apartment building downtown seems a bit exaggerated. But it still happens, mainly in North America. In such a case, where is the bravery? According to our definition, it lies where the main risk is. Who is more at risk? In the above example, it is no doubt the lone armed man (who is by the way perhaps not armed at all).

The techniques and procedures mentioned above render any display of bravery problematic for the law enforcement side. There is very little risk to them and the above mentioned notion of unfair advantage reappears: all perimeter secured, snipers put in place, helicopter coverage, every one wearing bullet proof vests or body armor. The risk lies on the other side and theoretically so does the possibility of real bravery display. And it is not only the odds (the suspect himself has probably no bullet proof vest, he is completely surrounded and at an incredible disadvantage), but the fact that every one of these officers will stick to procedure. What is procedure by the way? It is a compendium of techniques designed to diminish the risk, and diminishing or eliminating risks means less chance of seeing real bravery or physical courage display.

Now two questions for last. Does it mean that the lone violent criminal is braver than the squad of policemen chasing him? Not necessarily. The army officer mentioned above, who had an honorable career but never much chance to display physical bravery in his life, is perhaps a better human being than the young bully with a brief glory, and who ends his life miserably. So, it follows that bravery is not strictly necessary to have a good life and a useful one. The second question: has a very professional army where everyone is behaving so professionally and sticking to procedures a harder time to reach real bravery? Probably and sadly, yes, then it is said that a victory obtained without much risk has little or no value. ''À vaincre sans péril, on triomphe sans gloire''. Does it mean that one should give up wearing a bulletproof vest or body armor? Of course not. What is the purpose of life by the way: to be happy or to be a hero? Achilles, the hero of the Trojan War said one thing 3000 years ago, but today we know different.

The fact that in a conflict between a world power or highly industrialized country and a Third World country, the latter will invariably suffer at least ten times more casualties has always been an excuse for the soldiers of the stronger side to claim more bravery. Looking at numbers, they think themselves to be better, smarter, braver than the other side, so it comes as a shock when they lose that war...

Vietnam would be a much too easy example, so let's be fair and examine another one: Algeria (the seven years war between the French army and the liberation movement 1955-1962). The military casualties were as follows: 200000 dead for the rebellion and 13000 for the French. Notice that the French soldiers wounded in battle would be evacuated and reach the operation table in less than 3 hours, the American wounded in Vietnam in less than 2 hours, the wounded in the actual Iraqi war in less than 55 minutes and sometimes in such short a time as 30 minutes or less. Now the other side has no medics, no helicopters, no medical or treatment facilities and no operation tables. So, the gravely wounded of the rebellion in Algeria were simply left there to rot and die.

If we consider that one side has a better equipment, better gear (for example body armor), a better training and a superior medical system, it is not very hard for them to keep a lower casualty rate than the other side. But let's consider the value of life itself, the value of one life. Why is it that the life of an American- or European citizen is believed to have a greater value than that of an Asian or African? And that has been true for decades. If a few thousand American dead are unacceptable, while hundreds of thousand of the enemy are considered negligible, has it not something to do with their mercantile value: their capacity to earn money while they're alive? In 1975, the American worker could earn up to 25000 dollars a year, the Vietnamese less than 500. To say that the American could earn 50 times more in a year, is that not the same as to say that his life itself is worth 50 times more? Now we understand when they say that a few hundred American casualties are indeed a very high, unbearable, unacceptable price: it is their value as earning generating individuals that makes their death a terrible loss.

So, if we consider casualties and the value of a human life, as a rule of thumb: the side with the better equipment and better medical facilities will have lower casualties and theoretically a better chance to win (nothing to do with bravery or qualities of leadership), and the side with a stronger economy can ill afford high casualties, then soldiers and citizens are not primarily considered as human beings but as economic assets and earning generating units. The strange paradox here is that the economically stronger- more modern side has incredible weaknesses. It has the tools to maintain casualties lower, but has no choice as to maintain them substantially low at all times: close to zero. Now we know that a zero casualty war is impossible. The only way to achieve something close to that would be, for a country that has the mastery of the sky, to provide solely air support to its allies in a conflict, and to systematically avoid any involvement of its own ground troops. After 1975, the Americans were tempted to do just that (withdrawals from Beirut and Somalia, careful avoidance of any ground involvement in Bosnia/Serbia), but both Iraqi wars showed that it was not always possible to keep doing that.

The expression cannon-fodder or fresh meat for the grinder goes back to the Napoleonic wars, when common soldiers were seen as no more than mere flesh waiting to be torn and shredded by cannon balls or artillery shells (''de la chair à canon''). Since then, there is a general feeling in the lower ranks of all armies of the world, that the private, the common soldier is in fact expendable, because he is part of a big army. Now this sentiment has been recognized as so negative and damaging to the organization by all head quarters and high commands, that they have devised several techniques to reduce its negative impact.

Common soldiers believed that they were being sacrificed, while their officers well dressed, pampered, living in nice quarters, well fed and indulging in nice pastimes (playing polo) had an easy life. This may have been true for a long time in most armies (British, German, French, etc...) until around 1950. Then there was a turn around in army thinking. The soldier had to believe that he was important, that the officers would stand by him, and fight with him. He was not anymore an insignificant part of the machine, he was the machine. He had to realize that if a leader has followers, it is ultimately the followers who make the leader. A general without an army is nothing, Alexander abandoned by his soldiers at the Hyphasus was reduced to nothing. Alexander regaining the trust of his men was something again.

The most apt at this new thinking were the Americans. First boost the morale, tell the men that they are not mere infantrymen of an infantry regiment, but elite members of an elite group. On the ground, there was traditionally not much difference between say an airborne regiment and an infantry regiment. Differences had to be made in improving the way of fighting, the training, etc.  Add more personal carrier vehicles, light armour and armed reconnaissance units and your dull infantry regiment is transformed into something more dashy: mechanized infantry. So, the days of dense rows of infantry waiting to be butchered by the Howitzers are definitely over.

Further, it was found that if we reduce the size of the units themselves, each soldier in them will feel more important. No doubt that a member of an elite Delta team of 6 or 8 feels more important and more at ease than a recruit lost in a dense bataillon of 400 or worse lost in a regiment of 2000 infantrymen sweating at attention on parade grounds. So, all kinds of special forces and special ops units were created in all armies of the world, numbering each no more than 20 men. The concept of the one man army was created: each man was an army, could take out an entire army by himself if he had to, etc...  So, we could say now that the days of the privately enlisted thinking that he is mere meat for the grinder are over, or are they? The answer lies in the head of each member of these groundtroops units, present and future.

As you know, a Brown Nose is someone who tries " too hard" to be a good student, recruit or soldier. He or she makes rate by sucking up to his or her superiors. But this subservience is in reality a mere tool to get some favours like better grades, and later get a promotion: to finally obtain the long desired position.

The sad reality is that brownnosing is not merely anymore what it was before, when it was first introduced in the academic institutions for the young in England, America and elsewhere: that is a tool for young people to get ahead fast or survive in difficult environments. No, this kind of slimy behaviour has creeped everywhere else since, and is now present in all bureaucratic organizations in the world, especially governments: the Ministry of Justice, the education, the army, you name it...

If we use the term in a broader sense to enclose all possible occurrences of the phenomenon and the different forms it can take, we find that it is more than a mere US military slang expression for sycophants or a reference to the awards system of the Brownies used in Girl Guides/Girl Scouts organizations. Originally, Brownie points were an hypothetical currency, which can be accrued by doing good deeds or earning favor in the eyes of one's superior. Now what does that mean? Good deeds. To betray your classmates by providing the teacher with inside information as to who's done it and why, to do extra-curriculum work for the teacher, to bribe her with an apple or to do more serious, unspeakable things for her? No doubt that girls and especially women could be very apt and skillful at this spy-informant business.

Now, back to the modern meaning of the word and the damage it can do to organizations, especially the military. The brown-noser is a snitch (an informant), a Sycophant (a delator, a public informer), this person seeks to please people in positions of authority or influence in order to gain power himself. What he or she doesn't know however, is that all who do so will invariably lose their pride, principles, and peer respect. Witness the color of the expression: BROWN. Now, what part of the body is usually brown? The anus, right! (especially after you have finished defecated), now what is a student, intern or apprentice doing with his nose in there? Helping his master wipe it clean? Tending to the toilet paper? Your master can do it himself (unless he is gravely ill, and in that case there are nurses). So, get your nose out of there! Usefull tip: if one of your coworker or classmate gets unusually successful all of a sudden and earns several promotions in a short period of time, have a good look at his nose, maybe you'll notice something!

In an ideal world, everybody would be rewarded and promoted according to their achievements and abilities. But in the real world, power plays, career moves (which is an euphemism for struggle to eliminate all rivals by throwing dirt at them and get that promotion by all means possible) and various office conspiracies take most of the time and energy of those pretending to work there. In other words, there is not much real work done in those times of the year when several openings need to be filled and all serious contenders prepare their deadly traps, a clever brownnosing, or as last resort consent to a final battle to the last with their rivals. May the best opportunist win! But while everybody is busy conspiring and taking care of their personal interests, what happens to the organization?

Maybe a few suckers are still doing their jobs diligently and conscientiously (by the way, those will never get promoted), and it is on the backs of these few people still at their post that the whole organization rely, especially in times of crisis (when the big bosses and higher staff are too busy yelling contradictory orders anyway, to then again get any real work done). Lets not be unfair though, from time to time a competent boss or head of a department will emerge to get some large piece of work done and improve things. But this is the exception rather than the rule, and how did this happen? For once, competence, achievements and abilities were rewarded. How come? Maybe the brownnosers and conspiratists were busy doing something else at the time. However, such stroke of good luck are very rare and never last.

Let's give an example. In a very large organization, one female employee notices that her boss is not following the rules, that he acts contrary to the established and recognized protocols of the ministry. She tells him so and asks him, as price for getting her mouth shot, to reward her with a promotion or to increase her salary by one or two pay-grades. In all bureaucracies and in all languages of the world, this is called extorting a promotion. Now, if her boss feels guilty, he may decide to go on with it, but it will leave him open to further blackmail in the future by the same person. Or he may choose to expose the employee, to tell publicly what she tried to do. This is the wisest course. The employee is neutralized, she's got a bad name now, and negative remarks and a blame in her file. Sometimes, it may be enough to get her fired.

The above example shows that most employees don't really have work and the good of the company on their mind most of the time, there is something else called self interest and getting ahead. But why should we blame them? Do all directors and members of the board put the common good ahead of their personal interest ? Of course not. There is another plague in the work place that has reached epidemic proportions, especially in the Canadian army (but if it is rampant there, the American army is probably infected too) that is better known as CYA, an acronym for COVER YOUR ASS. This thing is so important as to be mentioned in all training programs. Basically it is to take notes and be aware and remember all you are doing during the day and document it as far as possible, SO AS NOT TO BE BLAMED if anything bad happens. What does this mean? The CYA protocol is put in place to protect you, to shift the blame to someone else, a way not to be the ''fall guy''.

Such a thing as CYA is unhealthy in any organization. It encourages suspicion, destroys trust, feeds rivalry and sow hate and resentment. By the way, such a system could be misinterpreted as COVER YOUR TRACKS, thus encouraging sabotage. If we go back to the source of all abhorrent behaviours mentionened above, we may find that misguided ambition and rivalry are to blame in such cases. According to Peter's principle, a notion that was developped thirty years ago, a man's ambition will allow him to finally reach his ''level of incompetence'' some day.

Finally, we could ask ourselves: what is the cost of all this? Higher staff busy at devising strategies to get the next promotion, a deputy-director looking for ways to increase the size of his department and extend the scope of his personal power, inter-deparments and inter-service rivalries, small employees looking for an opportunity at brownnosing or to trip up or plan the downfall of a coworker, a supervisor waiting for an employee to miss a step and the opportunity to humiliate him or her publicly, etc... Do you have any idea how much such intrigues cost to the business world and the government every year? Billions of dollars. Yes, you heard it right: billions. Then those people doing powerplays and making career moves all day long do not work, not in the real, usefull sense of the word anyway. As a tax-payer, what do you think about this? And, more important question, what do you think Genghis Khan would have done with all these brown-nosers and masters of intrigues? Have them beheaded? Right, we know what he did to traitors!

Martial Arts of the Orient belong to the realm of the military, like it or not. The interest for them has been recently revived through the Hollywood production The Last Samurai, starring Tom Cruise. We could say that in the last fifty years, Martial Arts have made a double conquest of America: the film/entertainment industry and the education system. For the film industry, we only have to mention a few names: Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, Steven Segal, Jean-Claude Van Damme and at least one movie title: <<The Karate Kid>>, and everybody knows what we're talking about.

As for the education system, it started with Judo/Karate schools in the early sixties, Karate clubs in virtually every college in America. It made its way into military colleges, secret training programs for the special forces, etc. In the seventies, it had already spread to basic training on military bases (for the infantry mostly) and to police academies. Now it's everywhere.

It is true that through this spreading of the Art something seems to have been lost, in fact something has been lost. In the armed forces, for instance, Karate is now seen as a mere close combat technique. But what has been lost ? Haragei or part of it: some of the ESP (extra sensory perception) capability of such art, which goes hand in hand with its spirituality. In short: reduced to a technique, the spiritual side has diminished, and so has the ESP and ultimately the true efficiency of such art.

But what is this guy talking about ?

Remember that in China and Japan such arts were not widely practiced, they were restricted to an elite: some monks and the warrior class. Not being available to the masses, there were very few disciples and even fewer masters of the art. Small wonder then, if the exploits of such masters and those masters themselves became legends. They could do what very few people can do today, even high level practitioners.

Let's talk about this ESP capability: Haragei, mastery of the Chi. A Samurai enters a room, he immediately knows there is someone else in this room, there is somebody hidden behind the door. How does he know ? It is night, pitch-black, attacked from behind he dodges the blow and counters (in both cases, the attacker didn't make a sound), how does he do that ? Haragei. Miyamoto Musashi drops to the ground and evades a bullet. A soldier was aiming at him and firing his musket more than 100 metres away. How did he sensed the danger, he was ducking even before hearing the gunshot. The old master overpowers the attacker who was pointing a gun at him from a distance of 30 feet before he had time to pull the trigger. How is this possible ?

Let's stage the confrontation between guns with a lot of fire power and the art. Two people. The first: Age 23, good looking, experienced gunman, sharpshooter in the military, top of his class in the police academy, top physical condition, strong and confident. The second: an old man, very old, more than eighty years old, looks tired all the time, shoulders bent, walks slowly, on the verge of falling apart, profession: former Jujitsu and Ken-jitsu master, status: retired a long time ago. Action ! <<Hey, old man, get out of my way!>> <<What, are you deaf old man>>, but before he could grab the old man and hit him, this one had evaded the blow, forced him to the ground and immobilized him. The young man was now yelling <<uncle>>. Until now, it is possible. Technique. But listen to that one. From a distance of twenty pace, the young man draws his gun, aims and before he could complete the shot (pull the trigger), the old man was already on him, immobilizing him. What is wrong with that second picture ?

The young man is much stronger and faster, he has keener reflexes. Normally, the old man wouldn't have a chance. Experience and technique, doesn't explain anything then the younger man has them too. What ? Haragei. The old man was reading his mind. He knew beforehand that the young man would attack him and exactly what he would do. He didn't need faster reflexes because he was already faster. Before the younger man had made up his mind to attack him, he knew. By the time the mind of the attacker was sending orders to the muscles through the nervous system, the old man had already leaped into action. Now that's fast!

What would it take to beat the old man ? Attack without intention, let the attack begin by itself and unfold itself without you willing it, without thinking about it. Now that's very hard. Munen mushin, well, fine in theory! Your mind like a clear lake. You attack without thought, without intention or passion, calmly, with detachment, and Munen mushin works also the other way: being so calm, you will be receptive to everything and will be able to read your opponent's mind. The other solution would be to mask your Wa, to mask your intention. Apparently, practitioners of some Ninja schools can do that. Thirdly, if you don't have time to invest in twenty years or more of training, take a high powered rifle with a telescope and shoot the b**t**d from a safe distance (more than one kilometer). Experience shows that ESP ability of that sort wanes with distance. It seriously diminishes between 10 and 100 yards (depending on the individuals) and is clearly inoperative over 300 yards. It would take a master's master to read your intention at 1000 yards. But if it's Miyamoto Musashi you're tracking, I'd say play if safe, forget the whole matter and go home !

But let's come back to this reading of intentions. A master with a strong Hara could start to react before the attacker has completed his action. Worse, he starts taking countermeasures even before the attacker has finished deciding that he would attack. There is then, I admit, a very thin line here between fast reacting to an attack and a preemptive or preventive strike. But this explains clearly why the old master will always keep the upper hand in an encounter with the young champion, except of course in an Hollywood movie, where it is the good guy (i.e. the youngest and the most handsome of the two) that has to win.

Our brain emits waves. A master of the art can tune in to our wavelength and read our mind. How frightening ! However, it doesn't need to concern us so much. Contrary to the popular belief of what a mind reader should be, the master cannot read our fine thoughts, only the big ones involving a lot of emotional discharge. If you have a fleeting thought about what you have eaten this morning, the master cannot read this, it is too faint. If you think <<the master looks silly in his old garments>>, don't worry he can probably not read it and neither can he read the words in your mind. If you have a deep fear inside you though or have thoughts of killing him, those being thoughts of amplitude, of course he will read them and know your intention.

And now, let's tackle the most important question, how can you acquire this ESP ? Has it something to do with a natural ability ? How can you develop it ? Of course, you realize that this is a closely guarded secret in all martial arts: may they be Japanese, Chinese, empty handed fighting systems, or others involving specific weapons. A lot of old masters (but are there so many still living today) will try to set you on a false road, pointing willingly in the wrong direction. They will say it is with time, through zazen meditation, that kind of nonsense! They will ask you to work diligently all aspects of the martial art, and after a great number of years, it will come naturally. What they say is of course not that wrong, but they will never admit that there is a shortcut leading to it. That's what they have to hide. If all practitioners would know, the position of the master would be threatened after a few years, a decade at the most.

But what is this secret ? How can you develop this ESP ability ? The answer lies in the difference between traditional fighting arts in the West and in the East. What is this difference ? In the West we had them all: boxing, wrestling  (the pancrace and Olympic wrestling of the Greeks), fencing and swordsmanship with the broadsword (in the Middle-Ages), even boxing with kicking techniques (the savate). We had approximately the same martial techniques. What was different ? The kata ! In the West we never had such a thing.

And what is the Kata ? It is a series combat moves put on a sequence, an epic battle fought with many adversaries. Some say a sort of dance or shadow boxing, but they are wrong. Let's see! In most Karate or Kendo classes, the session begins with warming up exercises: running, punching, kicking, stretching of the legs, all sort of moves to develop the agility and flexibility of the limbs. Then the teacher shows some moves and techniques, and the better part of the session is devoted to practice those with a partner. Later, the students incorporate the new moves inside a kata and they rehearse the katas that they already know, once or twice. Then comes mock combat or semi-competition (Ju-kumite) and finally, after a nice bow, the class is dismissed. If you later ask the students what is more important or what they like the most, a majority will tell you: competition and the tournament at the end of the month. Some will say: practice with a partner, none will ever say kata. And yet, it is perhaps this overlooked part of the training that is the most important.

The students learn it to pass their belt (get their grades). Even for the teacher, kata is viewed as important but not that much. He teaches it and practices it mostly because it's a mandatory traditional form and part of the curriculum, otherwise he would probably skip it. What is it in the kata that is so special, and what makes you arrive at the conclusion that it could be the key to Haragei and ESP mastery: the big secret of the martial arts ? Answer: rare accounts of known masters !

How is it that nobody ever found out ? Some did and they developed ESP ability. The reason is very simple. If you rehearse the Kata twice a day, it is a good exercise, good for your health but nothing more. If you rehearse it five times a day, it is very good for learning the kata. You will know it by heart in a few weeks. If you rehearse it ten times a day, no noticeable difference; except that you will feel pretty much tired at the end of the day. No, nothing will ever happen unless you practice it close to 100 times a day for a long period of time, say a few months. Then you will notice a difference. <<Yes, but doing nothing else but kata, is it not like practicing taoist Tai Chi?>>. Precisely! But the reward is not automatic. For instance, not all kata are good for this, and it must be done in a certain way.

What is a good kata to practice and attain Haragei ? A long one (between 100 and 200 moves), with a large variety of techniques (punching, kicking, blocking, deflecting the blow, evading the attack, retreating, counterattacking). In fact, a good kata contains all the techniques of the style you practice. All these techniques are developed in a sequence that makes sense, that is: one that could really happen and be put to use <<as is>> in a real fight. You should examine all moves, they must make sense in combat. Ask your teacher their meaning, how they apply in a real fight. Apply a no-nonsense attitude in your choice of kata. Discard one that has to much choregraphic moves, choose your kata for its total efficiency in real combat instead of one that has mainly artistic value. You're a fighter, not a ballerina !

Now that you have chosen your kata or katas, learn it to perfection. In all the details, even if you have to be choregraphic about it. No one says that a total efficient move could not be beautiful or elegant sometimes. Ask as many teachers as you need, really master it, do it to perfection, at the right speed. Now that you know it inside out, begin your secret training. Forget everything!

Forget what they have told you about the correct speed, the correct posture, the correct way of moving. You are now in the arena surrounded by the enemy. Visualize them and begin the kata AT COMBAT SPEED. You are now doing it at twice or three times the usual speed. Some moves are botched, others completely incorrect, no matter, continue! It suddenly feels like real combat and you are alone. Do it a second time and a third. Now you should be sweating profusely. How many times can you do this at full speed before collapsing ? Depends. I'd say, do it for forty minutes and then rest at least twenty. If it takes normally 5 minutes to do the whole kata, you should be able to complete it in a little bit more than 2 minutes at combat speed; which means that you can do it twenty times in one hour. It should then take you 5 to 6 hours to complete your daily series of 100 katas.

Something will happen. The kata itself will change you. It will enable you to reach the no-mind. In the kata you block, then counter, you deflect the blow, then strike a blow. It is automatic, you do it all the time. If attacked, you will do it without thinking about it, without knowing that you've done it ! Worse, if attacked in your sleep, you will fend off the attack unconsciously, before awakening. Now that's extreme! In doing a series of kata at combat speed, you will sometimes lose count, even lose the consciousness of where you are and what you are doing. You're entering a new dimension, you are standing at the doorstep of a new world of perception. It is magic my friend. You are mutating ! <<So, I will develop an incredible intuition and ESP powers?>> Yes, but don't forget, there are three conditions:
1- a right choice of kata
2- you do it a hundred times and more a day for many months or many years (the results depend on your natural abilities)
3- you do it at combat speed, with total commitment, let the animal part of you coming out, let the beast loose, it is not only a combat Kata, IT IS A SAVAGE KATA.

If you do this, the magic will happen someday!

Now for the last question: <<Is it possible that some gunslingers of the Old West may have had some kind of natural Haragei?>> -  You bet!

A lot has been lost in many martial arts such as Karate, Tae Kwon Do, Judo and to a certain degree Jiu Jitsu. The problem with these martial arts is that they are too often viewed as sports. So one is most likely to be trained in how to fight competitively and in accordance to a set of rules. The subsequent neglect or ommission of techniques and way of thinking, because of the confinements to competition fighting, leaves alarming gaps for many practitioners in the field of self defence.

The realisation that many mainstream martial arts have been diluted may well have been the drive behind the rise of martial arts like Kali/Eskrima, Silat, Muay Thai and cross training. Of course cross training in the form of Jet Kune Do has been around since the sixties, when Bruce Lee could see the weaknesses inherent in every single style, and opted not to limit himself to one style of martial art but to incorporate certain aspects of them all in order to tailor make his own personal way of fighting.

The ESP aspect of martial arts mentioned above could be more accurately described as awareness. The same ability that lets you know that you are being stared at, or your ability to pick up the collective mood of a group of people. This is not a sixth sense, in the term that some mystical sixth sense is in action, it is the other five senses combined. Especially sight and hearing, the ability to read body language, tone of voice and breathing rate. There is no such thing as an attack without warning, even when an assailant wishes to catch you unawares, there are always tell tale signs. What a well trained martial artist is able to do is read those signs, and not put himself in vulnerable positions.

Some say, it is a dangerous notion to believe that kata alone is all that's needed. They say, the limitation in overpractising kata is that you do not gain any fighting experience. Kata are a pre-set sequence of moves, usually following the pattern of block after strike. Actual combat is random in its moves, and is dynamic with no set sequence; your opponent is not obliged to stick to your rules, in fact opponents have a nasty habit of being fairly uncooperative. Experienced opponents will quickly learn your fighting pattern and predict your next move.

That is why you should choose a long kata with a lot of different techniques in it, some short sequences of it being so real as to be able to be applied ''as is'' in a real fight. True, long sequences of a kata could never be applied in a real fight, because a fight is random; but some moves and short sequences could be used ''as is'' or slightly changed. The only usefulness of doing the kata so many times and at combat speed is that it will all happen uncounsciously. You will apply these techniques without thinking about it.

Would you like to become a member ? EASY

Just write to us, give us your appraisal of our work so far (what you think of this site), tell us why you would like to become a member and don't forget to include everything on a large SASE.

Write where, what is your Address ?

Of course we have an Internet Address (giskhan@ca.inter.net), it is just that we don't trust entirely the E-mail system. Why ? Too many hackers and crackers out there, possible privacy problems, monitoring of your communications by government agencies or worse by foreign governments, but stop the paranoia : it is interesting for you to know that we also have an HARD ADDRESS. HARD or hard core Address means a real street and street number, a real city in an identifiable country and a real Postal (ZIP) Code. Quite reassuring, don't you think ?

J.C.Rochefort (Webmaster) #107, 5970 21th avenue, Montreal, P. Quebec, CANADA H1X 2G4

Donations are also welcome, but we don't need them to maintain this site. If you ever consider a donation, just send a cheque to J.C. Rochefort at the address above.

Thank you !

Note that our best stuff is not on the Internet.