Pentagon shake in their boots!

This new report



Basically says, go china go china go china BUT

The last part is very interesting

Despite the pace of modernization, the report says, the People's Liberation Army remains untested in modern warfare and most of China's leaders lack military experience.
That gives rise to a greater potential for miscalculations, according to the report, which "would be equally catastrophic whether based on advice from operationally inexperienced commanders or from 'scientific' combat models."

I think their might be some truth in it, unless of course you have some very super computers that calculate the correct strategy then politicians might think that they KNOW how to fight and are CERTAIN that they KNOW, convinced that they KNOW and once a conflict starts their troops get massacred.

well all the elements of "scientific warfare" and the mindless douple leader/party comitee leadership methods of military units are the two most top priorieties that needs to be put into waste basket if Chinese military ever wants to reach modern level.
To anyone that has ever served in military unit of any sort this is quite selfevident thougth...

Gollevainen said:

well all the elements of "scientific warfare" and the mindless douple leader/party comitee leadership methods of military units are the two most top priorieties that needs to be put into waste basket if Chinese military ever wants to reach modern level.
To anyone that has ever served in military unit of any sort this is quite selfevident thougth...

Click to expand...

You better believe it. When you have military commanders in battle doing their job but hampered by no-nothing politicians or "political officers" you have confusion and probaly defeat.

Chinese army without political officers: opium war, opium war redux, boxer war, nanjing massacre, run to taiwan

Chinese army WITH political officers: korea, korea, korea. india.


Let's face it you guys fear our political army. "never fight china" is not a very old idea..it's only about the age of *communist* china. :china:

bd popeye said:

You better believe it. When you have military commanders in battle doing their job but hampered by no-nothing politicians or "political officers" you have confusion and probaly defeat.

Click to expand...

You guys have made a valid point, but only from our Western perspectives. Afterall, the PLA which was under much stricter political control back in the old days had defeated US led and/or US supported armies which were much better trained, equipped, and supported than PLA. Also, regardless how modern an army is, if it can not achieve its political objective, and simply lose the fight, it is less valuable than an obsolete army that wins the conflict. PLA has proven itself to the West again and again that it should never be underestimated regardless of how obsolete their electronic gadgets are. Boy, I am getting sick just thinking about how D.Rumsfeld and his cronies had grossly underestimated their foes and screw up the war .

Afterall, the PLA which was under much stricter political control back in the old days had defeated US led and/or US supported armies which were much better trained, equipped, and supported than PLA.

Click to expand...

What manner of defeat are you refering to? Political or military? Thank you.

Let's face it you guys fear our political army. "never fight china" is not a very old idea..it's only about the age of *communist* china.

Click to expand...

Trust me , I personally have no fear of the PLA or PRC political army. . Only respect. Much of the bravado you hear from the Pentagon is to bolster more spending $$$$$ for the US DoD "toys". They can't get the toys without an enemy. That's how the game is played.

Gollevainen and bd popeye: First of all, I thought in this forum, one is not allowed to talk about things " political ".
Second. both of you miss the point on political officers in the PLA. In the army, the political officers has the most influence of all PLA services, but they ( the political officers) are at best the second in command in any unit in time of war. The first officer is always a professional soldier who know how to fight a (battal)war. In the PLAAF, a political officer does not even know how to fly, but the unit commander normaily is one of the better pilots in this unit. PLAN, i knew little, so can not speak for them. So in a war. if the commanding officer is killed, then the chief of staff take over the command of the unit in the army( with the help of the political officer at his side act again as the second in command)), in the PLAAF, the second highest ranking pilot in this command take over. So yes, in the PLA, political officer is important post, but they handle very little fightting duties.
Please let me also say that: do not look at the PLA through your own colored glasses. In the PLA, a political officer's main duties are: (in the Western terms) 1. Public relations officer in charge of local-army( military ) relations. 2. In charge of R&R of the troops, act as a cheer leader inside of the unit. 3. in charge of general quality of living issues of the unit. 4. ensure political royalty to the CCP 5. Act as a gereral consultant to the commanding officer in time of war, but the commanding officer has the last word in matter of how the battal is fought. Hope these helps.

Reading official DoD publications regarding the PRC and her military forces every time provokes ambiguous second thoughts in my confused mind ...

After all they need a credible enemy to legitimate ´their stake´ in the american economy but eventually after intricate cross checking and reading between the lines most evidence seems to prove that the current US military establishment (military and civilian) does not take a proposed strategic challenge by China really serious.

This kind of situation may be welcomed by most people since they simply think that an overconfident hegemonial power does not assume to be threatened and consequently will act in a benign way. Principally this could be true although a process of sudden disillusionment about supremacy of US power could change that state of complacency over night.

US political and military leaders made catastrophically wrong assumptions about essential factors in Iraq and Afghanistan and consequently their fatal decisions have produced a considerable negative impact on the comprehensive power of the US. Unfourtunately this cycle of failure is poised to be repeated regarding the US grand strategy vis a vis Russia and China albeit with far more serious consequences.
The current administration is hell bent for confronting and bullying Russia and intimidating and bribing off (well with their own money, Beijing indeed can call that chutzpah... ) China for having their way on consolidating global hegemony in the 21st century. Perhaps that kind of dream (nightmare for others...) is already unrealistic but the awakening after heavy delusions is always unpleasant and Moscow and Beijing have to be prepared for some irrational and dangerous moves by an irritated hegemon during the next 18 months.:nono:

bd popeye said:

You better believe it. When you have military commanders in battle doing their job but hampered by no-nothing politicians or "political officers" you have confusion and probaly defeat.

Click to expand...

Today political officers don't mend in military affairs, they're the 2nd in command sequence.

I think Americans totally misunderstand Chinese commissioner's system, they think it's like Russian Red Army system, but actually it's not from very beginning, Mao is quite critical of Red Army commissioner system.

In PLA tradition, a commissioner is responsible for briefing to soldiers, taking care their welfare, organizing enteiterment, ensuring they're not abused by their commanders, not bullied by other soldiers, helping their family if they get trouble, in relationship or financial. If a soldier got problem, he goes to his commissioner for help, usually not his commander. So a PLA commissioner is usually more welcomed than the troop commander.

A PLA commissioner has much less power than his Russian counterpart in the past, he usually can't force his will to commander. Just look as Lin Biao's case, Lin baseically didn't care about anything of his troops, he put everything routine to his commissioner's hand, and focused only on military planing and commanding. His commissioner, Marshal Luo, was his chief staff, training officer, logistic organizer...., and finally he worked too hard and fell sick.

Superficial comparisons with the old soviet system of ´political officers´are indeed misleading. Even back in the 50's PLA was no carbon copy of the Soviet Army but unfourtunately prejudices prove sometimes more robust than the simple truth.