The modern battlefield is characterized by drones, precision weapon systems, and rapid information transfer. Nevertheless, there may come a moment when a soldier finds himself within arm’s reach of the enemy, is unable to use a firearm, or finds that other means have failed. It is precisely at such moments that simple habits, determination, stress management, and the ability to act make all the difference. Chief Instructor Warrant Officer Miroslav Sokol discusses the importance of self-defense and close-quarters combat in the Czech Army.

How long have you been working as an instructor, and in what areas do you work?

I have been working as a close-quarters combat instructor for eighteen years and, for the past three years, as the chief close-quarters combat instructor in the Czech Armed Forces. I have also been a marksmanship instructor for eight years and, last but not least, a communications instructor. It’s true that even though I majored in “signals,” it’s the area I use the least today. However, it would be unwise to completely lose this skill at this point. The modern battlefield shows that without technology and communications – which enable effective command and control – it is impossible to operate efficiently.

What originally led you to these fields?

I studied communications at the Military High School in Brno, and my many years of service in communications units naturally led me to become an instructor for basic communications equipment in the Czech Armed Forces. The army, along with my desire to be able to protect myself and my loved ones, led me to practical self-defense and close-quarters combat. I’ve always liked challenges, so I didn’t pass up the opportunity to become an army instructor. I didn’t attempt the marksmanship instructor course until later. It was one of the toughest courses I’ve ever taken in the army, and at the same time, one of the most important.

Do you remember the moment when you decided to fully dedicate yourself to close-quarters combat?

I don’t think I ever really made that decision. The role of a close-quarters combat instructor is usually secondary in the military. I always had my main duties and job assignments, and alongside that I trained in close-quarters combat, often in my free time, just like my other colleagues. But it made sense to me both professionally and personally, so I took every opportunity to train or lead training sessions.

What was your journey like from an ordinary soldier to a lead instructor, and what motivates you to this day?

It was long and difficult. I always tried to train harder than the others—and, in fact, I had to. Because of my weight, I used to be lighter than most of my colleagues, who were stronger. But in the military, weight classes don’t matter. So I had to be faster, more technically skilled, and more determined. I think I succeeded. My greatest motivation comes from the soldiers who train in close-quarters combat and the new instructors who want to improve and do so with the same tenacity as I do. It wouldn’t be possible without them, and I thank them all for that. The same goes for my senior instructor colleagues who trained me, passed on a wealth of experience to me, and helped me rise to my current position.

What qualities should a good close-quarters combat instructor have?

A person who learns dangerous techniques capable of injuring or killing must have firmly established moral values. The close-quarters combat system in the Czech Armed Forces is trained according to the MUSADO MCS principle. Therefore, the MUSADO KJOHUN code of ethics best reflects these principles: in – humanity, ui – justice, je – courtesy, chi – wisdom, sin – trust, suk – benevolence, tuk – truthfulness, chung – loyalty, and jong – courage.

What should the public understand by the term “close-quarters combat” in a military context? How does it differ from civilian combat sports?

Close-quarters combat in the Czech Armed Forces is a purpose-built system focused on training soldiers and other armed forces personnel. It takes into account their equipment, armaments, and the missions they carry out. It is based on the MUSADO Military Combat System and on the original pragmatic mission of martial arts: to survive and win. This is also the fundamental difference from combat sports. Even disciplines that may seem almost rule-free at first glance have weight classes and precisely defined prohibited strikes and actions. These include, for example, attacks on the spine or the back of the head, strikes to the groin, headbutts, and attacks on the eyes. Specific rules vary by sport and organization. However, the military system is not a competition. Its goal is to end a real threat as quickly as possible and to survive.

How important are mental fortitude, coping with stress, and the ability to make split-second decisions?

Mental fortitude is absolutely crucial. Coping with stress is an integral part of a soldier’s training – not only in close combat and marksmanship, but also in other areas. This is the culminating phase of training, when a soldier is placed in a stressful situation and his ability to react is evaluated. It is only under pressure that a person’s true character is revealed. Some manage to keep a cool head, while others freeze up, stop communicating, or react physically. I’ve seen all of these cases during my time in the field. At the same time, however, even the best soldier can make a mistake under extreme pressure. A single wrong reaction doesn’t necessarily define a person’s entire character. It’s only recurring patterns of behavior in stressful situations that are truly revealing.

What are the most common mistakes you encounter among soldiers at the beginning of their training?

At first, it’s hard for some people to understand that it’s not important to know thousands of self-defense techniques. Complex techniques are usually unusable in combat or very situation-specific. What matters are solid movement fundamentals, determination, quick reactions, and a few simple techniques that can be used in many different situations.

How do you work with knives, sticks, or improvised weapons during training?

When fighting with a knife or defending against one, we use mock knives, and in some advanced stages of training, we even use a real knife. A knife extends your reach depending on its length and is naturally more dangerous than a bare hand. A telescopic baton or an improvised stick extends the reach even further. You must know how to handle all weapons. Defending against a knife with your bare hands is a major challenge, even against an untrained attacker. Virtually anything around us can serve as an improvised weapon: a backpack, a helmet, a rock, dirt, a chair, a coffee mug, or a set of keys. Just look around. Training with improvised weapons isn’t much different from training with standard equipment.

How demanding is the training, both physically and mentally? Do soldiers really push themselves to their limits during it?

The level of difficulty always depends on the soldier’s individual physical and mental condition. This is clearly illustrated by the Cooper test – a 12-minute run – which is used by the military during annual physical fitness evaluations. For some, running three kilometers in that time is a routine feat; for others, it’s nearly the limit of their capabilities. Soldiers are generally expected to be in good physical condition, and close-quarters combat is no exception. During routine self-defense training, physical fitness isn’t the main goal – that’s handled by physical training. However, the requirements are higher for instructor training. An instructor must demonstrate a specified level of physical fitness during an exam, and we also use physical exertion as the simplest and fastest way to put a soldier under simulated stress. In my opinion, every soldier should experience pushing themselves to the limit during training – though obviously not during every exercise. Once in a while, as the culminating phase of preparation, that’s enough – the body remembers such an experience for a long time. I see this most often during instructor exams. Sometimes, however, we get a strong group where everyone is prepared beyond the requirements. With such people, it takes longer for them to reach the limits of their abilities, and it’s necessary to incorporate stressors other than just physical exertion.

How does marksmanship training complement close-quarters combat? When does the use of a firearm end and other skills become decisive?

Marksmanship training is a primary skill for a soldier. Everyone must master it just as they must master their specialized field. The required level, of course, varies depending on the unit and rank. Soldiers in combat units must, above all, master advanced marksmanship skills. Close-quarters combat, by contrast, is a last resort when all else fails. However, there are units that operate at close range, in urban environments, or inside buildings. In such situations, its importance increases. There is a higher probability that a soldier or police officer will have to defend their weapon at close range, or may be unable to fire due to the risk to others and will be forced to use the weapon, for example, as a striking weapon. Close-quarters combat in the Czech Armed Forces addresses these situations. Its connection to marksmanship training is therefore very close and crucial for soldiers.

Why does close-quarters combat still have a place in an era of drones, modern technology, and precision weapon systems?

Whether it is used depends on the type of deployment and the specific mission. Sometimes it is likely to be used; other times, these skills are rarely applied. While contemporary conflicts place great emphasis on modern technology, they also show that man-to-man combat has not disappeared from the battlefield.

Proficiency in close-quarters combat also gives a soldier a psychological advantage. If his weapon malfunctions, he runs out of ammunition, or finds himself in a situation where he cannot fire, this moment will not be entirely unfamiliar to him. He will be able to react because he has prepared for and been trained in such situations.

Do these skills extend into a soldier’s everyday life off duty?

Situations can arise in everyday life as well that can no longer be resolved by any means other than physical defense. Muggings, sexual assault, and murder are, unfortunately, part of today’s world. It is better to be prepared than taken by surprise, and the applicability of self-defense and close-quarters combat to one’s personal life therefore lies primarily in preparing for crisis situations. Personally, however, the longer I’ve been involved in this field, the more reluctant I am to use combat as the culmination of a conflict. It’s always necessary to exhaust all possibilities for communication and prevention. Combat is truly only the last, unavoidable option for protecting oneself or one’s loved ones.

In your opinion, what should every soldier be able to do, regardless of their specialty?

The demands placed on soldiers – even in basic roles – are constantly increasing. Firearms are no longer just “metal” with mechanical sights. They now include various types of optoelectronic devices that soldiers must know how to operate. Communication devices also offer more and more possibilities, but they are naturally more demanding to operate and configure. So what should every soldier be able to do, regardless of their specialty? Above all, they should be able to do their job well.

What message would you convey to young people who are considering military service?

I don’t feel wise enough to come up with my own message. So I’ll paraphrase an idea from the thousand-year-old book *The Art of War*, which I read a long time ago. And I would direct it not only to young people considering service, but to everyone: “Before you take a step, think and reflect.” The opposite phenomenon, which we unfortunately encounter today, is the “one step, one idea” approach. I recommend steering clear of that.