Exactly. As America's mission has changed from killing and winning to "peacekeeping," its CQC tactics have changed with it, and THAT is a crime.
Restraining a hostile enemy combatant so you can interrogate him later- yea, you'll use grappling for that.
Killing two charging Japanese soldiers who are charging at you on Iwo Jima- your grappling is worthless, and the combatives that are no longer stressed become essential.
I do not like the emphasis on MMA skills that they have begun to implement. I'm glad you guys are training realistically of course, i.e. multiple attackers and defending while having flak jackets and the appropriate armaments adorning you, but still, I hear that they no longer teach how to use the bayonet. What army since the dawn of time hasn't at least taught that!?
But I understand that changing battlefield landscape, of course, and there's only so much time to train, but I would honestly think drilling soldiers on something like Kelly McCann's combatives would be FAR more effective and time-efficient than teaching them how to armbar some a-rab in the desert, assuming that they've dropped their rifle, pistol, and can't reach any one of their knives.
Like you said though... it's them moving the tactics away from kill techniques... and I just hope that Marines don't find out too late when they're going house to house in some Saharan shithole that although they could hold their own against an amateur fighter, they can't deliver the chin jab that will kill a man.
This is the same old story of people saying, "Well if it doesn't work in the UFC it's garbage" or saying "Well, in 'The Streetz' that shit'a get you killlled.'"
None of it really makes sense because a punch is a punch and a kick is a kick, but it's the situation you're training for that will make the difference. In this case, I think they're pushing to hard towards worrying about what they can teach marines so they don't kill each other in a barfight as opposed to what's TRULY appropriate for them.
Once again... just my opinion.