Author: Hosieconsultingandtraining

I have two kinds of clients or students contact me for training.

The first and most common are those with a self-reliant attitude and life style.  They are into the prepper movement to varying degrees with some food, water and money set aside for if things go wrong.  They also have self-reliant skills; they can change a tire, do not often call a handy man and may be hunters.  They see guns and self defense as another set of tools and skills.  They will come for a half day to a couple of days training then, feeling comfortable that they have enough of the skill-set down and the tools set up as they like, move on to other things. They will occasionally practice to keep a base level of skill up.   While I get some individuals, most come as couples or sometimes groups.

The second type of clients are rarer. They are the self-selected warriors, working at firearms as a martial art.  They may have military or law enforcement background with or without real fighting experience, but some do not, as life has taken them down other paths. They may not be the type that work well with government organizations, or were young or old and just started down this path.  These men or women (strangely I have met more women out of the military that are into guns and really learn to fight with them) almost all have some hand to hand martial arts background and take as much training from me or others as they can afford. I had one client recently say after a course that he had attended over twenty different firearms courses.  I work with them for four or five days, spread over months, or some do several weeks worth of training over a year or two.  They usually train in a variety of concepts, not just pistol, but carbine, low light work, etc.,  and are learning a variety of each type of platform (one with five types of carbines or rifles) and techniques for them.   They do their home work as well.  I had one client come back after practicing their draw over a thousand times with a huge increase in skill and speed.  These clients generally come as individuals, or if in a couple, one is all in and the other is along for the ride.

It is a pleasure to work with both types of clients and there is a degree of overlap between the two, as the one constant about human beings is that they change.  I also do not expect one to be the other and with my business model I can tailor the training to where my clients are at now.  Repeat business is not only on how well I do my job, but also who the client is and their attitude toward what I teach.  Myself,  I have been in the self-selected warrior side for over three decades.   I take courses in martial arts both hand to hand and with firearms when I can afford the time and money.  When I go to other instructors’ courses I see the same two general types of clients.

The common traits shared by both is they have no over large ego and have a willingness to go outside their comfort zone.  They understand there are things they do not know and have the humility to expose it to others in order to learn and improve themselves.  And as they learn and improve in competence, they grow in confidence.  The relationship between competence and confidence is my next subject.

Case Study:  David and Goliath

The single case study is going to be the familiar story of David and Goliath, but not the common Sunday school version of the plucky little kid who took down the big bully with a sling shot and faith in God.  Great story, but  the Sunday school version is wrong. The ruthless David did not kill him with a sling, it was not a fair fight, David cheated, and it was not really about Goliath at all.  The only thing true is David had faith in God.  This will not be treated as a Bible study, but studying the aspects of physical and moral courage and briefly touching on competence with your equipment; knowing its strengths and limitations, and not fighting on your opponents’ terms but cheating and fighting on yours, and using physical courage as a tool for moral courage and leadership.

3000 years ago, two nations were fighting for a piece of the eastern Mediterranean basin.  The Israelis, who had a militia-based military system and had only recently unified under a single ruler, had been struggling against the Philistines for over a century.  The Philistines were tail end of the sea peoples who destroyed or damaged most of the civilizations in the region, and had a more professional military class and higher technology with better bronze and iron working for weapons and armor.  This meant not only good quality but greater quantity. The Israelis have, at this time, few iron weapons.

The Philistines had staged an invasion and the Israelis, under their new king, Saul, had moved to block it.  A stand off for over a month resulted with both armies squaring off on opposite hills, waiting for an advantage.  Now this was roughly within a century of the Trojan War with such champions as Achilles and Hector battling before the walls of Troy.  In this tradition, the Philistines put forth a giant of a champion (six foot nine inch to over 9 foot depending on the translation) in full heavy infantry kit, heavy armor, shield, spear, javelin and a first rate iron sword.    The Israelis do not have a giant of their own, and few men with full armor and iron weapons. At earlier battles only King Saul and his son were so equipped.  So outside of the royal family, no one has similar equipment to fight Goliath in a one on one duel on Goliath’s terms.  The daily challenge and taunts dismays and terrifies the Israeli army,  building a climate of physical and moral cowardice in the army.

In to this situation comes David, bringing supplies for his three older brothers who were with the army.   Hearing Goliath’s challenge, David was shocked that no one had answered it.  David declares he will fight Goliath,  spurred on by religious and patriotic zeal, and perhaps the rumored  offer of the King’s daughter in marriage and tax breaks to the man who kills the enemy champion.  The first response from his brothers is to deride him as having a wicked heart for just wanting to fight.  It was classic ridicule of the brave by moral cowards.

David then finds the king and tells him he will fight Goliath.  The king’s response to him is; you are a young man and the Philistine is a professional warrior from his youth.  David’s response is; as a shepherd alone I fight and kill lions and bears trying to attack the family sheep on a regular basis.  Translation: I work out in the gym of courage all the time.  If I can kill a lion or bear then a man is just the same, I have a strong courage muscle.

The King then tries to give David his armor and sword so he can fight Goliath on even terms.  David refuses saying he does not know how to use them and will use his own weapon.  A few points before we get on to the narrative about knowing your weapons and equipment.  Just because you have something does not mean you know how to use it.  Even with modern body armor you have to relearn how to fight and move in it.  Even if you are in good shape it will frustrate you in basic movements at first and wear you down until you and your muscles learn how to use it.  Weapons are worse because you can maim yourself  or worse if you do not know how to use a certain one.

The weapon David was going to use was a sling, and this was not the kids’ sling shot your Sunday school teacher talked about.  Slings as military weapons were used from ancient times until the Middle Ages (and later in the new world) and were as common as bows in many armies.  In fact,  lead being used in bullets was first used by the Greeks and Romans for sling projectiles.  But even with the stones used by the ancient Israelis the energy of the projectile is close to modern pistols.  But that is misleading,  do not think he popped him with a 45.  The projectile had the ballistic coefficient of a rock, literally, so it loses energy fast and also has a much larger surface area and is less dense at slower speed.  Think of a major league baseball pitcher throwing a fast ball made of concrete.  It will break bones and do some surface damage but not shoot through someone.

Knowing the strengths and limitations of his weapon, David forms a plan to fight his enemy on his strength and not Goliath’s strength. One of the most important tactical and strategic principles is to fight your fight not your opponent’s fight, outside of the sports field the more unfair you can make it the better.  David advances with a stick (it could be a staff as translations differ) in hand and hiding the sling and stones.  Goliath’s response is “am I a dog that come at me with sticks?” or “you can’t be serious”, shows he does not think it’s a real offer of a fight. He was expecting another armored champion.   Then  Goliath advances and says he is going to leave David’s body to the birds of the air and the beasts of the fields.  David states to both armies that he will give the whole Philistine army to the same (the “worms and buzzards have to eat” line that Clint Eastwood says in the movie The Outlaw Josey Wales is quoting scripture), and his faith is in God that all of Philistines will soon die.  Goliath’s death is not David’s goal, he is setting up the event to flip the morale and courage of both armies.  David runs quickly, closing the distance then gets his sling ready.  Close in he gets the most power out of the sling and also gives himself a better chance of hitting exposed flesh on an armored target.  A couple quick revolutions and then he releases the stone before Goliath can get his shield up. The stone hits him in the fore head and he drops to the ground.  David then rushes forward, draws Goliath’s own sword and then kills him with it and beheads him.   The morale and courage of the armies does flip and the Israelis defeat the Philistines in a rush.

A while back I overheard two men in my church talking about a fight one of them got into.  He quoted one of the Pusher movies “God is going to sit this one out”.  This was displaying the world view that Christianity, while it may have some moral courage, has no tradition of physical courage.   Nothing could be more wrong.  Judeo-Christian history has a very strong warrior tradition that includes courage, being crafty and ruthless as values.  It is the cowards that always try to down play courage and any attempt to exercise the muscles that keep it strong.

Most of the following blog entries will be shorter than this. Topics will include going over equipment both physical and philosophies of use, training, mindset and fighting drills to confront modern threats.  But I will also go over historical examples from Western Civilization and its roots;  Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman and Barbarian traditions.  Western Civilization is the standard bearer for individual liberties and rights, including self defense.

Bernini’s David sculpture, better in my eyes than Michelangelo’s.

The look of determination on David’s face and the fixing of his vision.

Less than five seconds until it is lights out for Goliath.

Courage as a muscle

Not all strength is physical.  There are mental muscles, just like physical ones that will be strong or weak as you use them.  For those with a martial calling, or just life in general, one of the more important mental muscles is courage.  I will address courage both at an individual level where your metal muscles to deal with fear are most important, but also at the group level, as humans are social creatures, and courage and cowardice can be contagious.  Reactions to how others behave around you on a subconscious level, such as a yawn or cough, or even crying or vomiting can spread.  So can giving in to fear or resistance to it.

The great World War I flying ace, Eddie Rickenbacker,  defined courage as ”..doing what you are afraid to do.  There can be no courage unless you are scared”.  The opposite of going at what you fear is cowardice, avoiding  the thing you fear.  Courage has two forms that are distinct,  yet interlink to a degree; physical and moral.  Physical courage is facing and taking on something that you think can harm or kill you.  For purposes of this discussion I will also include willingness to do violence, or being dangerous as part of physical courage.  Moral courage is facing a peer group’s perceived ridicule, and a bit more complex.  People want to get along and have people like them and not be shamed by a group, even if they are shamed for the wrong reason for doing the right thing.   The peer pressure in schools is a prime example with the behavior just getting more sophisticated for adults.  The common fear of public speaking, with the mere possibility of group ridicule is another example of this.  Doing or saying the right thing when at least the vocal members of the peer group say the opposite is moral courage.

So how do you exercise courage as a muscle?  By regularly having courage in the small things, facing a degree of danger when it appears, or steeling yourself to have an unpopular opinion in a group if you feel it is morally right.  Develop the mental thinking habits of thinking through scenarios and how you would react.  In my more advanced firearms training, going beyond the basics of shooting and getting into fighting around scenarios is good.  Any martial art will help at this; although the further it is from sport and closer to real fighting the better.  As developing competence in fighting, this helps develop confidence which can build up the courage muscle.  Speaking well of the brave and encouraging others helps.  Find good role models in people you personally know or study historical figures.  Other social norms do this, such as kids playing cops and robbers.  Having faith in something bigger than you may help build you up or others having faith and expectations in you can help. Good military units encourage brave behavior or, in an example from history,  the Spartan women tell their men to come back with your shield or on it (my wife would end all her letters to me in Iraq not telling me to look out for myself but to give my enemies hell).   If you feel inclined, such hobbies with controlled danger like motor racing, rock climbing, or hunting alone in remote areas are also good ways to exercise courage.  Further along if you are called to the military or law enforcement.  But you do not need to take up prize fighting and dirt bike racing while joining up to be Navy SEAL to build up your courage muscle.  Other situations are risk taking in business , pushing yourself beyond your comfort zone physically, mentally, spiritually, and socially  (it is a whole other blog entry and somewhat self promoting but most of my clients I tutor push themselves beyond there comfort zone just to show up).

Now all in the previous paragraph can go wrong if reason and common sense are not applied.  Foolish risks for no good reason, the loud mouth jerk who is always right (and no moral courage to admit when he is wrong), the braggart who talks up what other people think is heroic but are show and never go are negative examples. Doing something to impress others and for peer group praise (the number of wars started to impress a girl is higher than most people think), and worse the bully who confuses pushing around the weak with strength are some examples of it being misapplied.  The flip side is that cowards, both physical and moral,  will used these labels against the brave, justifying their own behavior by belittling what they are not.  Being brave or not is a spectrum that people move up or down (See Dr. Grossman’s  sheep and sheep dog as a great example).  Most people are comfortable praising the brave from a distance, but often  find courageous and dangerous people up close, well, scary.   This can happen to degrees in all kinds of groups.  I have seen poorly led military units in which the majority with limited or no combat experience have issues and are afraid of a few combat veterans’ cavalier attitude towards danger and violence.  So in extremes you can have a group that is supposed to have physical courage go along with socially popular cowards to belittle brave behavior.  This can go on much deeper on this subject and how it affects all forms of leadership, but this is limited depth and I need to do the case study.

Next: Part II- Case Study of David and Goliath

Case studies

These case studies are included to illustrate points in the essay (see Parts 1 and 2)but are a limited sample and not all inclusive.  They are shortened from any broader tactical lessons to just cover the points relevant to this presentation

Raid in Iraq: A mentally and physically prepared defender expecting attack is defeated by surprise and panic among non-combatants.

A mid-level leader in an Al-Quaeda affiliated group had escaped and evaded three previous raids to capture him.  He was a former officer in the Republican Guard, seeing combat against Iran and the Kurds.  He had lead recent home invasions against his fellow Arabs to raise money for his group and in another case killed the 10 year old child of a suspect informant.  In short, he was used to interpersonal violence.  He had loaded assault rifles, a sub-machinegun, and pistol, stashing them about the building so a weapon would always be in arm’s reach.  He was a good example of a prepared defender. The attackers came on foot in a small group, rather than in vehicles in large groups as in earlier raids. Using collapsible assault ladders to cross irrigation canals at night, they were unobserved by the local terror network’s cell phone early warning network.  They ignored dogs barking for over a minute before the attackers entered the door.  He recovered from the shock quickly but was restrained from getting to a loaded weapon in arm’s reach by his panicking wife.  The same small group captured other members of the terror group even though they were outnumbered by fighters in the village before reinforcements arrived by vehicle.  Speed and surprise under the cover of darkness kept other terrorist defenders in confusion about the actions and small size of attackers.  The armed defender, after a short stint in U.S. custody was extra-legally executed by a faction of the Iraq security forces that believed he was involved in crimes against humanity in the Kurdish genocide and helping in the car bombings that had killed over a hundred civilians in the previous month.

A series of Law Enforcement and Military raids: Keeping up speed and violence of action

First, a law enforcement raid against a drug house with several armed drug dealers by a local drug enforcement team.  After achieving surprise, the entry man encounters an armed suspect and kills him with a single shotgun blast.  The shotgun then jams with several armed suspects still in the building.  The attacker drops the shotgun, draws a side arm and continues after a couple second delay, and keeps up speed to secure the building without further killing.  The second is a military raid in Iraq. The entry man is shot with a shotgun (a rarity in the middle east) in the chest.  The body armor absorbs the blast and the attacker gets over the shock in 2 seconds and kills the shot gun armed defender with a pair of 5.56 rounds.  He and the rest of the team clear the building without delay.  The flip side of these examples is in several instances in training and real raids the attackers freeze after gunfire (sometimes their own) and have to be pushed along by team members to keep up the speed of the attack.  To counter this, the unit used a few seconds before entry to prepare for the adrenaline rush and shock of violence that may follow.  This pregnant pause of mental preparation allows speed to be kept up in the attack.

Home Invasion by Gang: When surprise is given away

An active duty military member with experience in recent conflicts is at home on a summer afternoon when his dog, also in inside the house, starts barking.  Hearing heavy pounding at the front door, he looks through a peep hole to see a single young male and a vehicle with several people in it.  He decides not to answer the door and after several minutes the pounding ends.  Feeling something was wrong and already armed with a carry pistol, he went to get shoes on.  Before he can get them on a large bang is heard at his back door.  Dropping the shoes, he draws his weapon and assumes an ambush position using the corner of a door frame and furiture for cover and concealment.  A second bang, and his back door is kicked open.  Two men enter on one side of his living room with him on the other, and after a quick demand to them to halt he shoots the first one in the head, killing him.  The second turns and runs with the dog running after him.  The defender calls police and waits for them to show up and deal with legal matters.  It turns out he confronted four (2 were in the car) members of a criminal gang with experience in robbing both unoccupied and occupied homes in the area.  In occupied homes they had violently assaulted any residents they had found.  But in this case they gave away surprise, which alerted the defender to mentally prepare for an attack.  He formed one plan to get fully dressed for action.  As soon as he heard entry, he formed a new plan of waiting in ambush for the attackers behind cover and partial concealment with his weapon ready for action.  The simple plan worked.  Also, the dog acting aggressively toward the attackers was perhaps aided by the aggressive attitude of his master.

Law enforcement raid gone wrong: Outnumbered ten to one, a cool and ruthless defender flips all the attackers advantages.

The attackers are ten members of a joint narcotics task force that executes over 150 high risk search warrants each year.  They are after a grow house with under two dozen plants.  They do not know if the house is occupied or used only for a grow, due to minimal pre-raid reconnaissance (which included days before knocking on the door and no one answering).  The defender is an ex- army paratrooper.  Those that served with him thought little of him. He was a communications technician and due to attitude, alcohol abuse, and trouble with the law, both civilian and military, never got beyond the rank of specialist (E-4).  He never saw combat.  For the raid, the element of surprise may have been lost by the attackers setting up only a block away and in sight of one of the windows of the house.

As entry is made, the attackers split into 2 groups to go after the basement and ground floor level at the same time.  The ground floor team in a lighted room is hit by fire from the defender in a darken bedroom.  The defender, armed with a full sized 9mm service pistol and two reloads (over 45 rounds), initially fires, wounds several attackers, and kills one.   Only half of the attackers are wearing body armor and 3 of them are without reloads for their weapons and they fall back, unable to see a good target because of light difference.  Panic sets in, with attackers with empty guns hiding behind attackers still in the fight, disrupting the fight even more.  The defender reloads and advances on the attackers, shooting through a refrigerator they are hiding behind.  The group from the basement comes upstairs, but mixed in with the panic of the first group of attackers, flees the house with them.  The defender shoots the wounded left behind as he follows the attackers outside, firing into attackers treating wounded outside in a lit area.  An attacker with an empty pistol retrieves a shotgun, but is unable to disengage the safety and is shot by the defender.   The defender only retreats back into the house after several patrol cars arrive and local law enforcement fire on him.  The defender then escapes out a window, later to be arrested. The attackers, one killed, five others wounded seriously, fired over 90 rounds.  The defender is only hit four times, none seriously and fired 38 rounds.  He soon dies of an apparent suicide while in jail.

While not thinking the defender’s action heroic at all in murdering one law enforcement agent and wounding five others (including one paralyzed), it is a stunning example of a defender using the elements of surprise, speed and violence of action to beat back a forced entry into a building.  After the surprise, he used an initial round of rapid fire and also used lighting to his advantage.  He then used speed and violence of action, attacking into to the defenders to create shock.  He then ruthlessly kept up the pressure until the shock and panic spread to the unengaged section of the attackers who then retreated.  Wounded attackers with empty weapons became de facto non-combatants who disrupted the rest of the team, grabbing them and trying to use them as shields.  If the defender had been equipped with a modern carbine and body armor, this flipping of advantages could have been even more effective.

Conclusion:

The goal of this essay was to briefly cover the mental aspects of a fight.  Speed, surprise, and violence of action producing some fear, terror and shock are in most fights.  The compression of time and space in and around buildings amplifies these effects.  Any serious study and training for the close in fight needs to incorporate them.  For more study, look in to the OODA loop (Observe, Orientate, Decide, Act) and action vs. reaction.  Also read about the psychology of a fight in the excellent  research and works of Dr. Dave Grossman, LTC U.S. Army (Ret).

Forced Entry Part 2-Defenders

The Defenders

The defenders’ best chance is to break up the three principles the attackers are using for success.  They do not know when they are being attacked, but if they make the first assumption that they may be attacked, they can prepare for the attack both physically and mentally.  To take away surprise requires vigilance and an early warning system. This can be dogs (see separate paragraph at the end of this section), electronics such as an alarm system(for rural locations even a simple drive way alarm that sounds like a door bell as someone drives up), security cameras, motion detector lights, or sentries (one among many things terrorist and criminal gangs have in common is early warning systems or sentries with cell phones), or just simply looking out the window now and then.  Speed can be broken up by physical obstacles,  fences or walls, exterior hardened doors (not just an extra dead bolt as most door frames can be knocked off their hinges by a fit adult with a bit of practice), interior hardened  doors (a specific safe room is a good idea), or other creative interior obstacles.   Even an obstacle that slows down the attackers for a few seconds can be life for the defenders.  Overcoming the surprise in the defenders mind and minimizing shock are the most important thing for the defender.  Violence of action is best met with violence of its own and a plan, no matter how simple.  The attackers are quickly and violently executing a plan, using the surprise and shock that comes with it.  The defender’s violence has to not only damage the attackers’ but disrupt their group plan and violence.  To do this they need to be armed with the tools to fight with.  While various martial arts can use bare hands and feet or blades (I know of a foreign military friend almost killed by a defender with a machete) we will assume modern small arms, since they are the most effective tool .  Firearms in a large combination gun safe might as well be on the moon if you only have a hand full of seconds to get them.  A weapon on the other side of the house, unless a fast movement away from attackers takes the defender to it, may be useless if the attackers are on you before you get to it.  This leaves firearm on your person or within arms’ reach as a realistic option.  Then the defenders’ options are a simple plan, wait in ambush, or attack aggressively into the invaders.  To best overcome the surprise of a real event, a plan before hand, rehearsed if possible, is best.  But needs drive and a plan may have to be changed or made up a second before. It must be quick to break up the attackers’ plan.  If done right, as in the case studies, it may turn all the attackers’ advantages of surprise, fear and terror leading to shock on its head.

The defender, when he overcomes shock will have to focus only on the fight and not non-combatants.  It  is hard not to comfort love ones in extreme situations.  If you have enough time, get them to a safe room, for example.  Do this only if you have an abundance of time.  Do your best before an event to make them combatants.  But when the fight starts, fight!  If someone you thought would be a combatant and you would look to lead the fight is still in shock and not back in an effective mindset, fight without them.  The defender has very limited time to break up the attackers and their plan.

Dogs deserve their own paragraph, as a lot of myths that they give perfect warning and then fight the attackers off are prevalent.  Dogs are the most common of early warning systems and have some strengths as well as problems.  Most people ignore their dogs’ initial barking for a short period of time before they look.  This is more than enough time for attackers to close with a building.  The other issue is the belief that the dog will attack an intruder.  Having done hundreds of forced entries, in my experience, most dogs will cower and back off from a group of men intent on violence due to dogs’ pack nature.  Some dogs will fight, most likely those that are trained as attack animals, but they are exceptions to the rule.  Most dogs are told daily to calm down and leave the stranger alone and never to attack a stranger. This is training the dogs to just watch when a real attack happens.  Also, experienced attackers know they can kill a dog with a firearm without even breaking their stride.  Human and canine nature limits the dogs’ effectiveness unless both are trained and disciplined before an event.

One other fact that aids the defender after the attacker gains control is if they lack discipline or a plan.  Home invasions in the media or in the “Armed Citizen” column of NRA publications routinely show prisoners of criminals escaping, arming themselves, and starting the fight over.  This generally happens when the attackers take a specific prisoner apart from the others or do a bad job of securing them from escape and leave the room.  Once the initial shock has worn off, a defender goes and secures a firearm and turns the tables.  This is not a real plan and it depends on luck and inept opponents but since it has been reported dozens of times, it is not to be discounted from the discussion and not only limited to criminals.  To the embarrassment of the service, I personally witnessed one instance of this when  a detained insurgent walked away at night into a small urban area when the guard’s back was turned and was attacking U.S. forces later that week.

Next: Part 3  Case Studies and Conclusions

Forced Entry (aka home invasion) Dynamics both psychological and sociological, combatants and non combatants

(copyright 2014 David B. Hosie)

The purpose of this essay is to cover not the tactics of forced entry, but the mental dynamics.  This is what occurs in the minds of individuals and groups affecting the success and failures of forced entry.   Principles of successful tactics and how they affect the mind set of forced entry will be covered as part and parcel of the dynamics of the close range fight.  While this can apply to individuals, the assumption for this presentation is of small groups attacking or defending a building.  Also I will refer to attackers and defenders, not good guys and bad guys.  The purpose of this is to show principles and characteristics of a fight, not that the moral side had correct principles or characteristics each time.  Every view point is subjective and mine comes from military experience from recent conflict, and some limited experience on the civilian side.  I will include, as much as possible, experience from law enforcement at local, state and federal levels along with members of foreign militaries I have trained with or shared experiences to give balance and add depth.

The Attackers

The attackers are trying to gain control of people (to kill, capture or extort) and a physical location.  They start with a huge advantage; they know there is going to be a fight and when.  Most military and law enforcement have trained together as a group and may have rehearsed their plan.  Criminals may not have rehearsed but they have a plan and, in common with legal home invaders, most have experience as a group at the task that has refined their plans.

The three principles of a good attack are speed, surprise and violence of action.  Speed is gaining quick entry to a structure and rapidly moving through it to engage any threats and gain control of any non-combatants.  Surprise is an event that occurs in a person’s mind, causing him to rethink what is happening and then change actions accordingly at best.  At worst it will result in shock that makes the person freeze for a period of time.  This is time they do not have (see next sections on shock).  Violence of action is just that, violence in appearance including the threat of and, well, action.

All three together are hard to beat with even a simple plan and tactics.  None of the would-be defenders know a fight is about to start. Attackers quickly gain entry, and rapidly move through the building using violence or its threat to herd up its occupants before they get over the shock and do what they will with them.  If they are more sophisticated they will do prior surveillance to get an idea of the targets’ habits. This includes their comings and goings, when they wake up or go to sleep, the number of people in the building, possible arms and who is likely to fight or not, layout of rooms and where people are likely to be when they choose to attack, strengths of entry points and how to quickly defeat them, how to secure their victims after they take control.  With all this information, the attackers can make a plan with a better chance of success as long as they execute it with the three principles.

Deimos and Phobos

In the 2004 presidential election, John Kerry said that American forces were “terrorizing Iraqi families in the night”.  It is one of the few things he ever said that was true of U.S. armed forces.  As our opponents did not have barracks, but live among the population, combatants and non-combatants would be encountered at the same time.  This is true of most forced entries against occupied buildings in America as well.  And fear and terror leading to shock are a part of modern conflict.  But fear and terror are nothing new in warfare.  The ancient Greek god of war, Aries would be followed by his twin sons Deimos and Phobos.  This is using a myth for the real fact that conflict is followed by terror and fear.   It may even precede the fight in the other translations of deimos and phobos, dread and horror.

In forced entry, speed, surprise and violence of action will produce fear and terror in most people.  This occurs both in those who may resist and in apparent non-combatants.  For someone going into a fight, be aware that grown men may scream like little girls and even your team mate may literally piss himself in the fight.  For decent people doing government sanctioned forced entry,  they need to steel themselves beforehand to the fact that little children will cry and flee from them and women may shriek in terror and curl up in a corner.  These apparent non-combatants may turn to defenders for structure, help and comfort.  A defender trying to get to a weapon may be literally tangled up with someone they are trying defend grabbing on to them.  Other defenders may pause and look to the person they see as a leader and wait for their actions to start based on that persons.  Human beings are social animals and fear and terror can spread, just like a cough or a yawn.  Experienced attackers will apply the 3 principles in a way to enhance fear and terror to aid their attack.  Properly applied it will produce shock.

Patton believed the greatest attribute of a tank was not its rapid mobility across rough terrain, nor its armor that could protect from most battle field threats, or even its fire power to destroy, but shock.   Shock, like surprise, is an event that occurs in the mind of an individual or group.  Surprise, fear and terror all together will have an effect on all people (except some sociopaths or those too stupid to understand what is going on).  This result can to be to freeze up or flee in panic.  Some individuals and groups, through training, discipline, or natural disposition, may overcome it quickly, but it is there.  Those that have not seen it may believe it is a small thing or an exaggeration.  But among the author and those with similar experience he has discussed it with, shock is almost a physical thing you can see both singularly and in groups.  Historically, it is well documented with surprising regularity.  Gideon in the Bible, with an absurdly small force, destroyed a large army with shock.

Both attackers and defenders should be aware of fear, terror and shock and include it in their plans.  Shock is not only a tool that can be used by the attackers but also the clever and/or ruthless defender.  It will not affect all people the same, but rehearsals, reaction drills and its effects in the fight should always be taken into account.

See Part  2- Defenders