I'd never call Krav Maga an "art" though .. it's solely about brutal pragmatics.

(a) Then how should Sun Tzu have entitled his famous work, if not "The Art of War"?

(b) Krav Maga is clearly a highly time- and energy-efficient tool for hand-to-hand combat; why should any martial art strive for any different metrics? (other than coping with exceptional circumstances via malicious compliance, such as that old French martial-art that focuses entirely on kicks not fists)

I have no response for (a) except to say that there’s an exception to every rule.

(b) has been treated extensively in many discussions. These usually are usually oriented around the role of conflict in daily life and the suitability of these arts as a way of dealing with them, for instance.

> conflict in daily life and the suitability of these arts as a way of dealing with them

Good grief! I can't imagine the amount of paperwork that would accumulate if fighting was a day-to-day occurrence in my life (except in Army during wartime, where assault is the job instead of a crime).

You see, that’s where you’re missing the point entirely ... there’s more to conflict than violence ...

Mars being the god of war, calling something a Martial art denotes that it is suitable for conflicts that have escalated all the way to war/violence. My previous statement meant to imply my hope that martial arts are not suitable for the vast majority of conflicts that occur in daily life.