US Sec. of Defence Robert Gates Visits China..What does it mean??
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Ambivalent
Junior Member
Gates is there to urge the Chinese to come visit our bases and conduct exercises with out forces. One of the foundations of deterrence from the American perspective is personal visits, especially opportunities for foreign military leaders, general and senior officers, to see the US military up close and personal. From the American perspective, we want foreign adversaries or potential adversaries to see our people at work, doing their day to day job. For most adversaries, that is sufficient deterrence. It isn't that the US service person is particularly fearsome or aggressive, rather it is the normal day to day professionalism and initiative, the responsibility we thrust on junior officers and particularly the leadership demonstrated by our mid level enlisted troops in every branch that are our greatest strengths.
Most foreign militaries, particularly those of less developed nations who tend to be our adversaries (and the USSR was just a third world county with a big army and lots of nukes) do not have motivated career mid grade enlisted troops who do not need to be told what to do. When you have the opportunity to meet an officer like Victor Belenko as I have you find out that they are simply stunned to see the level of professionalism that is normal among our own enlisted people. They do not have similarly motivated leaders among their enlisted forces. Most of our adversaries have a very hard time keeping anyone past their mandatory enlistment period. The Soviets had over a 90% turnover rate after two years of service. Their troops could do nothing unless an officer directed them and supervised them closely. When I was an officer in the Navy, I trusted my first class to get things done without being told. He was rewarded for his effort with public praise, a water-walker annual evaluation, a recommendation for a Navy Achievement Award or "NAM" and the personal satisfaction he derived from a job well done. All my troops knew their jobs and did them without my micromanaging them constantly. They all knew what needed to be done and did it. That is rare among militaries, common only to NATO militaries and a few others outside NATO such as Japan, Australia and New Zealand and Singapore (tough hombres the Singaporans).
It is a powerful thing to see this if your own forces lack a similar level of professionalism among the enlisted troops. That is what we want, send those foreign generals home wondering how they could ever stand up to our people knowing that even some lowly E-4 or E-5 will take the initiative and lead if the chips are down and the officers killed.
Most foreign militaries, particularly those of less developed nations who tend to be our adversaries (and the USSR was just a third world county with a big army and lots of nukes) do not have motivated career mid grade enlisted troops who do not need to be told what to do. When you have the opportunity to meet an officer like Victor Belenko as I have you find out that they are simply stunned to see the level of professionalism that is normal among our own enlisted people. They do not have similarly motivated leaders among their enlisted forces. Most of our adversaries have a very hard time keeping anyone past their mandatory enlistment period. The Soviets had over a 90% turnover rate after two years of service. Their troops could do nothing unless an officer directed them and supervised them closely. When I was an officer in the Navy, I trusted my first class to get things done without being told. He was rewarded for his effort with public praise, a water-walker annual evaluation, a recommendation for a Navy Achievement Award or "NAM" and the personal satisfaction he derived from a job well done. All my troops knew their jobs and did them without my micromanaging them constantly. They all knew what needed to be done and did it. That is rare among militaries, common only to NATO militaries and a few others outside NATO such as Japan, Australia and New Zealand and Singapore (tough hombres the Singaporans).
It is a powerful thing to see this if your own forces lack a similar level of professionalism among the enlisted troops. That is what we want, send those foreign generals home wondering how they could ever stand up to our people knowing that even some lowly E-4 or E-5 will take the initiative and lead if the chips are down and the officers killed.
Last edited:
the validity of your statement relies on one point that is the level of professionalism in the US military far exceeds any other in the world. but its useless to just assume things. i've had opportunities to work with some American troops...and lets just say there are good troops and then there are some not-so-good troops. i wonder if you'd provide examples of foreign generals gone home and is completely shocked and suddenly decided that his stance will take an 180 degree turn LOL
kwaigonegin
Colonel
good insight shipmate and well written! while I'll be realistic and say that while not all of our armed forces are real professional and elite (there are actually a fair share of gang members in it), compared to many other country's military we are definitely better trained, loyal and conduct ourselves in a manner that is of much higher quality.
Part of that I belief stems from our "militaristic" culture dating back to the days of G. W and other forefathers.
The US military is not just a service or entity charged with national protection but it is also part of the very fabric of our society since the very dawn of this country. It is deeply ingrained within the culture. Most if not all of the countries with similar military professionalism have this variable in common as well.
Cpt_Underpants
Banned Idiot
I would say the same for Chinese military too. They are very loyal, have huge pride for their country, brave, well trained and has good conducts. The only thing lacking is real war combat experience.
airsuperiority
Captain
agreed. the chinese people loved the PLA, esp in disaster relief and a very strict code of morals, ethics, and to service for the people. i respect all military personnel regardless of nationality and affliation as long as they have a strong code of chivalry, professionalism, and ethics
Ambivalent
Junior Member
If western accounts are to be believed, Hu was not aware of the first flight. Gates asked him about it after our people informed him of the flight. Hu and the other Chinese officials seemed surprised, and later on confirmed the flight had taken place.
Another instance of the central government and the CCP not fully in control of the PLA? That is the wag right now.
Flame away if you must. I wasn't there, I only read the paper every day.
Another instance of the central government and the CCP not fully in control of the PLA? That is the wag right now.
Flame away if you must. I wasn't there, I only read the paper every day.
the civie officials were surprised, but Hu explained to Gates that the flight was not directed at his visit and Gates took his words for it. its normal for civie officials to be kept in the dark about military affairs...kinda like how the state department were kept in the dark about iran-contra...bureaucracy is a b**ch.
but the other reason being Hu and Xi are really the only two politburo standing committee members who manage military affairs. other ppl has no authority.
Roger604
Senior Member
Robert Gates actually had to go on the record and correct the notion that civilian government did not have full control over the PLA.
I think what happened was that the press was given the instructions to follow this particular line of reporting to further demonize China. That's why we saw several variations on this theme starting in 2007.
Some people in Gate's entourage thought it would be a good idea (and a kind of revenge) to slip this theory into the papers after the meeting with Hu.
Then Gates and the White House realized they had a contradiction on their hands. First they said that Hu apparently didn't know (somebody in Gate's entourage made this claim to the papers). Then at the same time, Hu is supposed to have assured Gates that it wasn't deliberately done at the same time as his visit.
Then they realized that people just weren't buying this "Hu apparently didn't know" theory. Instead, most people just thought Hu was just being polite or didn't want to deal with this question. So Gates had to go on the record and backtrack away from this hint that PRC government is not in control of the PLA.
A claim like is very inflammatory and might cause Hu to cancel his state visit to the US.
zoom
Junior Member
It may be in the US interest to make out there is a disconnect between the Chinese government and the PLA.It may even be in the interest of the Chinese too to cause some nervousness in the Pentagon for example, but whatever the case the claim originated from a " US official who spoke on condition of anonymity " Hmmm.