News
Posted on: September 10, 2016
0
There is great interest in the tactical training industry for tactics articles. Posts detailing CQB and other tactics frequently drive spikes in page views, social media shares, and increased business. But, what are the risks of such articles? How do we balance providing awareness against helping undesirable elements? I’m often asked specific questions about tactics or approached to write specific articles. Most of the time I decline. Often, the people that have approached me are confused as to why I would make this decision. They sometimes argue the rationale that the article will be posted in a closed group or on a vetted forum. This week, I’d like to explain my position on why I limit the videos, posts, and articles on tactical training, CQB, and similar topics to the extent I do.
The best starting point to this discussion is the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). There are wide ranging opinions about ITAR and its applicability- but it does exist. ITAR is the regulatory enforcement that the United States government uses to restrict defense-related information and equipment to foreign entities or persons. As enforcement, US Citizens and/or companies can be prosecuted and heavily fined under these regulations. ITAR is a very broad set of regulations, and compounding this is the broad content of publications like US Army Field manuals. Certain topics like CQB and Small Unit Tactics are contained in the regulations, and often derived either from these manuals directly or from the training an instructor received that was based on them. ITAR section 120.9(a)(3) clearly outlines this. If you are in doubt you may want to give it a read as this section is designed to regulate training in Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures. The enforceability of broad interpretations of ITAR is debatable, but you should remember that the government isn’t scared to prosecute you with ludicrous amounts of your own tax dollars, whether they have a good case or not.
Another key point is that we are at war.Yes, that’s right. It doesn’t matter if we have pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan is spooling down. We are not the sole authority as to whether we are at war or peace, the enemy has a say. Currently we are at war with Islamic Extremism (among others, depending on your views) both at home and abroad. Fort Hood, Dallas, and Boston are examples of attacks by these very enemies. The Dallas shooter, specifically, received tactical training from a tactics instructor in Houston. Ask yourself how it will make you feel if the next shooter reads your articles on tactics and then seemingly applied them.
Our country is also being invaded across our southern border. Thousands of “Special Interest Aliens” are apprehended by enforcement on our southern border each year. These SIA’s are from countries like Syria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which are full of terrorist operatives. And those are just the ones that are caught.
I think it is reasonable to take the standpoint that nobody should be providing training or information to people who want us either subjugated or dead. Would you agree?
What about those in our country who have less than honorable intentions? Those who specialize in crimes like home invasions, muggings, etc. Would supplying them with specific techniques and exclusive tactical training be detrimental to law abiding citizens? Lock picking and restraint defeat are popular topics these days. Would CQB training be an aid to a home invasion gang? Would marksmanship training help the next active shooter? I think these questions are worth asking and pointing out for the purposes of this discussion. It also broadens the scope of concern when it comes to the disclosure of tactical training and related information.
Here is where all these problems really come to light. We use the internet to promote our businesses, share training, or to discuss things in forums. Some of these forums (or websites) are private and only accessible by users who the administrators choose. Let me be clear about something: IF IT IS ON THE INTERNET, IT IS NOT SECURE- PERIOD. This includes forums that are restricted to L/E or Military users. If you would not be comfortable posting something on a public domain where everyone in the world can view it, YOU SHOULD NOT BE POSTING IT. I understand that many of these sites are viewed as useful tools for the exchange of ideas between professionals in the industry. However, caution should be exercised as to the specificity of TTP’s. The same approach is valid for videos. It is worth considering whether hanging a video of ballistic penetration capabilities and the limitations of ammunition types when it comes to sections of vehicles is a good idea. Of course many of us want to validate our training by publicly showing proof of concepts or to refute someone else’s view. Often we do not consider the possibilities of our full audience.
I am a firm believer and supporter of our Constitution. The Second Amendment guarantees our right to own firearms and to receive training in them. The First Amendment guarantees our right to free speech. This causes many in the industry to cringe when our Executive Branch of government proposes that YouTube videos could fall under ITAR. However, it detracts from the larger and more important question- SHOULD the information be shared? I don’t like the idea of the government dictating what we say, but should it have to? If we are so concerned about sharing valuable training information with each other, why are we equally not concerned about it falling into the wrong hands?
We all have our lines to draw as to what we publicly disseminate and what we do not. I have published a series on the tactical rifle on YouTube, but it is limited to very basic fundamentals. Is it something that I would email directly to ISIS? Absolutely not. However, when weighing the content versus the value of dissemination- I don’t think it is out of bounds. On the other hand, I don’t post instruction on other certain topics that I feel would be irresponsible- Like CQB and lethal shot placement. BUT WAIT, THAT INFORMATION IS ALREADY ON THE INTERNET SO IT IS NO BIG DEAL! Sorry, that’s a cop out. I don’t care if some other instructor has posted information on the topic previously- it doesn’t validate the choice. Nor does it make it responsible to further expound on the topic. Limiting the dissemination of more sensitive topics to courses I teach gives me the ability to control who it goes to, to some extent. Although the people taught could then share the information with others outside of my control, at least I have some measure of evaluating the initial recipient. If I see something questionable about a prospective client- then I can refuse a slot to them, request further information from them, or just permanently add them to my training blacklist.
I have no doubt that some will not agree with some of my statements. Some will. I don’t have authority over others in the industry- they are free to do what they want. What I hope is that, if nothing else, this article may cause you to reconsider something you might post in YouTube, Facebook, or a private forum in the future. Perhaps you don’t post it, perhaps you re-write it so that it isn’t more specific than is necessary, maybe you decide to just meet with your audience in person. Keep in mind that the internet is not secure and it is forever. Once you share something on it- it can go anywhere.
