By Patrick Estebe
Clash Daily Guest Contributor
Fighting is a powerful calling for men; most male archetypes include a fighter/warrior aspect. Training to fight is also a great way to learn very important things related to security such as mobility and adaptability. But fighting does not provide security; the winning attitude developed in fighting may be contrary to the survival attitude needed in security.
The purpose of fighting is to win, what is won, whether it is the attention of a pretty lady, the look on the face of the bully who thought he was in control, or a shiny cup is quite irrelevant, the purpose of fighting is, simply, to win.
The concept of winning however implies that there is the possibility of not winning. In fact, the greater that possibility, the greater the fight. There is also the likelihood of being hit nearly as much as we hit the other guy, and if there are several other guys the cost of fighting is going up exponentially. Multiple opponents make for an epic, glorious fight… and a catastrophic security situation. The possibility of not winning is absolutely inacceptable in security.
Long ago Sun Tzu stated, “The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.” already pointing to the truth that one does not need to beat his adversaries to defeat them. Considering security with a fighter mindset would be a great mistake.
Security is about survival and winning has nothing to do with it. Fighting is an unacceptable risk even if the odds are good; it can only be a last resort, and even in this case it has to be a fight with a fallback position.
The Red Baron would only fight if most of the conditions were favorable to him, following his famous “Dicta Boelcke” policy. Interestingly “fighter planes” in Germany and in France were called “hunter planes” instead. This difference in language is an interesting clue about their methods.