Why modern soldiers had to relearn the brutal art of close-quarters combat
Close-quarters battle is a high-intensity, short-duration conflict defined by sudden violence. While special forces mastered these tactics in the 1970s to handle hostage crises, regular infantry units remained largely untrained for urban environments until the bloody, costly lessons of the Iraq War forced a fundamental shift in military doctrine.
The roots of modern close-quarters battle (CQB) trace back to the 1920s, when William E. Fairbairn of the Shanghai Municipal Police developed a system called defendu. Designed to be brutally effective and easy to learn, it combined martial arts with firearm techniques and ad hoc weaponry. During World War II, Fairbairn refined these methods for Allied special forces, producing manuals like Get Tough and training operatives at facilities such as Camp X in Canada.
For decades after 1945, CQB remained the exclusive domain of elite counterterrorist units. Following the 1972 Munich massacre, groups like the SAS, Delta Force, and GSG 9 developed precise, firearm-heavy tactics to assault structures while minimizing casualties. Because these units were small and closely knit, they maintained a monopoly on these skills, while regular infantry manuals continued to rely on outdated methods, such as throwing a grenade into a room before entering with automatic fire.
This special forces monopoly finally collapsed during the urban conflicts of the 1990s and early 2000s. The First and Second Battles of Fallujah in Iraq served as a watershed moment; U.S. Marines, lacking specialized CQB training and equipment, faced immense difficulties clearing buildings, leading to significant damage and casualties. These struggles, mirrored in Afghanistan, proved that urban warfare was no longer a niche task. Today, CQB is increasingly integrated into standard infantry training, though the transition remains contentious due to the high cost of the specialized facilities and equipment required.
The evolution of CQB also highlights the divergence between military and police objectives. While military units focus on neutralizing threats, police tactical units often prioritize apprehending suspects alive. Consequently, law enforcement training incorporates non-lethal tools like tasers and pepper spray, alongside negotiation tactics. Despite these differences, the core requirement remains the same: the ability to operate effectively in the tight, chaotic confines of built-up areas.
Source: Close-quarters battle
