About PLA's dual-leadership system
- Thread starter szbd
- Start date
szbd
Junior Member
Most of the time before WWII, USSR did not have politicle officer either.
I think that's the key point. In reality of the world, a troop commander is trained to combat, to kill, his best is his tactic skill in the field of war. But management of troops is another story, if you put two duties on one man's shoulder, he may do one well but fails at the other, it's very demanding.
PLA system is to split the two into two man's jobs. One focus on combat, war planing, commanding, that's his training. Another focus on management of the troops, his training is pseronal relationship, routine affaire management. The two work shoulder by shoulder.
The PLA system has more chance of success, combat is quite different from troop daily management, requiring different trainings. One person's capability and potential are quite limited.
Last edited:
If you look at 1974 Sino-SV sea war, it's quite different from you thought, and it's the most politicalizing time of PLA, in culture revolution.
Chinese patrol fleet were way smaller than SV navy fleet, both in tonnage and guns and equipments, but they won. SV navy fired first, and their first round killed most officiers, including political officiers of one patrol boat(I think it's boat 189). But the war boat fought extremely well.
well thats one way to look at it. Managment and leadership, the two key elements of leader, and if the two task are seperated clearly into two role, you in theory would get best possiple candinates for each role.
But military leaders main task is to keep up the dicipline of the unit. All military dicipline bases on the authority of the leader and from that dicipline rises the whole philoshophy how military unit is run. That dicipline is conducted and obeyd in the peace time as strict as in wartime, in order to make the unit working like "robot" so that there isent any guestions rised when decissions needs to be done fast.
But this doesent work so that in peace time you take it more relaxed and cooler, and only in crisis situation you drewn new orders and rules to run the unit. It needs to exist in the garrison live as well as in the frontline live with same stricthness.
And there we come to the authority issue. Can it be achieved by party comitee and political leader mengeling around and still remain flexible?
I will say the system works or not, mainly based on its culture and personality of the people. In PLA it's proved again and again it works. I won't say it will apply to western country situation, so it's not a universal principle.
If you look at Chinese marshals, two Lin Biao's political officers are also there, Marshal Luo and Marshal Nie. Both were hardly known to command a key battle, but both earned troop's respect by doing a lot of routine work, even from Lin himself. West culture is individualism, two same level commands usually lead to conflict of poersonality, but Chinese are collective mind, one more hand means help - it's different perspection.
The conclusion is that you can't look at Chinese system from western view filtered lens - it's not the way ususally thought in west.
**************************
Deng Xiaoping is the political commissier of 2nd Field Army(not an army, but an army group actually). He is not known for commanding any real battle, but he is well known to help commander Liu to command all battles. The 2nd Field Army is called Liu-Deng Army by its soldiers, rarely something can happened in west. And the two remained a very good relationship since then, even their families. Read Deng's daughter biography of Deng, it's full of admiration of Marshal Liu, called uncle Liu by Deng's family. You never find it in any western general's memories.
The closest western example is General Marshal, I would say. He never fought a real battle but he earned his respect widely from US troops, including all commanders. Well, that's the commissier's role in PLA, every unit has it.
Last edited:
beijingcar
New Member
If you look at the top 2 or 3 star generals in the PLA today as compared to the make up 15 years ago, you will see that 15 years ago, there are 3 star gererals in the CMC that has been both political officers and field troop commanders. In today's CMC, the gererals have been either field officers or political officers for their entire PLA career. What this tell's us is that in today's PLA, these two jobs are speciallized to the point that one is unlikely to jump from one role to the other. In my eyes, this may create problems. what do you guy's think?
As for some people's worry about in wartime, there will be interference from the political officer to the commander's decision. That is not going to happen, has not happened before and would not happen in the future. Why, PLA has clear rules on who is in total command of a unit in wartime and who will replace him if needed ( like if he is killed). Let me repeat PLA political officer's job to you again:
(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 matters of how the battal is fought. Hope these helps.
As for some people's worry about in wartime, there will be interference from the political officer to the commander's decision. That is not going to happen, has not happened before and would not happen in the future. Why, PLA has clear rules on who is in total command of a unit in wartime and who will replace him if needed ( like if he is killed). Let me repeat PLA political officer's job to you again:
(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 matters of how the battal is fought. Hope these helps.
well every system that is digged deep into peoples minds and lives will work in some extence. Im not questioning that. The thing that worries me is the flexibility of such thing. You can conduct military operations with it, Wheter it works is bit questionable, becouse Chinese communist victories have always depended on other factors. The concern lies mostly on the simple thing that , in the minds of the basic soldiers, who is the leader?
Wich one to believe if they say two different things?
Or when you are used in garrison service that decissions can be made by various personalites, can you adjust to the situation in the trench where there is only single authority?
...And most importantly, how can you create that authority if you are the unit leader, when in peacetime you need to show to your mens that deccissions can be made by someone else, or with democratic element where you are just one participant?
I know these are hard to understand, but if one are actually served in military unit, one can understand what Im saying.
Modern warfare high-ligths even more of fast decission making and personal innovativeness of company and battalion leaders. The change from peacefull garrison life into full fletched combat can be matter of hours, and only thing that in any army prevents the chaos to take controll is the chain of command and the information. Information can be (and will be) target of the war-events itself, The enemy will always seek opportunities to put your forces deep into realm of confusion and false information. Therefore the determeness and toughness of the unit commander comes even more critical...
I have had experiences, where awfull lot of disstress and confusion can be coused by simple fact that two elements give orders that condradict each others. Those can crible even the most diciplined and effective elite unit to numbness wich in "real" situation can be hazarous.
In situation where there is two leaders and certain matter of decission are under comitees hand, the risk of such comes many times bigger.
Wich one to believe if they say two different things?
Or when you are used in garrison service that decissions can be made by various personalites, can you adjust to the situation in the trench where there is only single authority?
...And most importantly, how can you create that authority if you are the unit leader, when in peacetime you need to show to your mens that deccissions can be made by someone else, or with democratic element where you are just one participant?
I know these are hard to understand, but if one are actually served in military unit, one can understand what Im saying.
Modern warfare high-ligths even more of fast decission making and personal innovativeness of company and battalion leaders. The change from peacefull garrison life into full fletched combat can be matter of hours, and only thing that in any army prevents the chaos to take controll is the chain of command and the information. Information can be (and will be) target of the war-events itself, The enemy will always seek opportunities to put your forces deep into realm of confusion and false information. Therefore the determeness and toughness of the unit commander comes even more critical...
I have had experiences, where awfull lot of disstress and confusion can be coused by simple fact that two elements give orders that condradict each others. Those can crible even the most diciplined and effective elite unit to numbness wich in "real" situation can be hazarous.
In situation where there is two leaders and certain matter of decission are under comitees hand, the risk of such comes many times bigger.
I konw what you mean. But it simply doesn't happen in PLA. A commissier never issues combat command, it's commanding officier's job.
In western view, two same level commanders in same unit give instructions at the same time, not in PLA system. They work it out in long process already.
This kind of argument is really like comparing apple vs orange.
I know that they wont "intervene"
The point comes from the orgins of the authority that is the first link in the chain that creates the dicipline and therefore the unit's figthing capability.
Also fast decissions and flexibility in combat enverioment is needed in other things as well, not just in the fighting. Support, logistics, supply, evacuation and housing are as nesserical as they are in garrison life, even more nesserical. In western armies there is a quarter-master that manages these things, but he doesent make decission over them.
The concern that I have rises from the idea that in combat enverioment, the leader needs to be aware and responsible of all matters, not just from the fact how he deploys his mens into bill-boxes or how he plans to overtake the next enemy controlled town.
In all armies aply our army's unoffical motto: the faster you do it, the faster it will happen. In PLA the chain of protocols and correct procedures are just too burden when the decissions, even the one that says where the battalions trucks are to be deployed for the next dayligth, needs to be ligthing fast. The commander gives the orders to his sub-commanders to conduct. No party comitee meating in that nor that someone else makes the decission.
Situation awareness is one of the key issues to survive in the battle field, It is severly compromised if you need to be in the mercy of someone else in the crucial non-combat element. You dont need nothing more than wrongly done plug-in by the radio operator and the whole unit migth face chaos as the two commanders migth not be able to communicate fast enough...
And thats is where i drawn my main thesis. In the field, the chain of decission making counts lot more than simple weapons or even how brave the soldiers are. The system that PLA has brings unnessery and heavy burden upon that chain and in modern warfare, the elements that affects to this chain are even more accute than ever
The point comes from the orgins of the authority that is the first link in the chain that creates the dicipline and therefore the unit's figthing capability.
Also fast decissions and flexibility in combat enverioment is needed in other things as well, not just in the fighting. Support, logistics, supply, evacuation and housing are as nesserical as they are in garrison life, even more nesserical. In western armies there is a quarter-master that manages these things, but he doesent make decission over them.
The concern that I have rises from the idea that in combat enverioment, the leader needs to be aware and responsible of all matters, not just from the fact how he deploys his mens into bill-boxes or how he plans to overtake the next enemy controlled town.
In all armies aply our army's unoffical motto: the faster you do it, the faster it will happen. In PLA the chain of protocols and correct procedures are just too burden when the decissions, even the one that says where the battalions trucks are to be deployed for the next dayligth, needs to be ligthing fast. The commander gives the orders to his sub-commanders to conduct. No party comitee meating in that nor that someone else makes the decission.
Situation awareness is one of the key issues to survive in the battle field, It is severly compromised if you need to be in the mercy of someone else in the crucial non-combat element. You dont need nothing more than wrongly done plug-in by the radio operator and the whole unit migth face chaos as the two commanders migth not be able to communicate fast enough...
And thats is where i drawn my main thesis. In the field, the chain of decission making counts lot more than simple weapons or even how brave the soldiers are. The system that PLA has brings unnessery and heavy burden upon that chain and in modern warfare, the elements that affects to this chain are even more accute than ever