About PLA's dual-leadership system

And, like I said, he would have that, however, he would also have someone to get more out of them. I'm saying that the commissar could complement the commander's knowledge of morale and the concerns of his soldiers so that the commander can better address them personally. It helps if the commander doesn't have to spend time figuring out what a problem is with his troops, so he can solve it.

Click to expand...

well there is allready a system for it. Its called sub-leaders. Even squad or section leader, Corporal or Junior sergent, depending on army (Im not that well aware of PLA ranks so I could point out wich) are to be seen as unit leader and therefor trained to lead mens in NCO schools. In basic unit level, wich is the company or battery, the are also platoon leaders, and unit-officer to deal these issues. The commisariaty really doesent bring anything new or important to this field to justify its existence.

I don't get where you have the idea that I was saying the commissar should delegate the orders from the commander and I don't believe that is what he is supposed to do either.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I miss read you then

It could just be that the PLA wasn't trained too well in being innovative and flexible. I'm not sure about the Sino-Indian War, but as I recall, the PLA did not send its best troops or even some of its best troops into Vietnam, though I couldn't say about India.

Isn't it possible that the commanders in the PLA were just not trained as well as they should have been?

Click to expand...

Well It could be...but then it would mean that PLA training is really, really poor...and of what is important in training of any armies, it is the officer corps training. I refuse to belive that any army as such large profile as PLA would be led bu incompetent and under trained officers.

But in other hand, in the sense you would say that the reason was the training, becouse in the trainings when you repeatedly follow the scientifical warfare doctrines (that both V-SSSR and PLA are famous of) and how to conduct them properly with the commisar, you get little attention paid to the training to deal with rabidly changing situations or emphasis the officer corps individual skills so that best out of their indpendent decission making and inteligence could be exploided.

What reason do you have to say the inflexibility and stiffness you allege was present in both conflicts is a result of the dual-leadership system?

Click to expand...

....So the reason would be that the alternative to that Is too horrible to belive to be true...

I think you're really over-dramatizing this whole thing. From what I've read the problem right now with the system is more about the shifting beliefs in society. The commissars are in charge of seeing that the soldiers are loyal to the party ideals, but the modernization of China is making for soldiers who behave in a way that would previously be considered inappropriate by a commissar. So a conflict arises there. That is what is apparently the problem more-so than anything else

Click to expand...

I agree with you in that. In overall the dual-leadership is a thing from highly politically "aware" era when the PLA units fougth in battles dictated by the class-based political situation. In those situations, the commisar system (as well as other communist political structure oddities) actually worked and was in rigth place.
But in the future, whatever reasons PLA is going for war, it wouldnt be brother-vs-brother class struggle anymore but a purely nationalistic venture where different things determens the motivation and morale of the troops and officers.

well there is allready a system for it. Its called sub-leaders. Even squad or section leader, Corporal or Junior sergent, depending on army (Im not that well aware of PLA ranks so I could point out wich) are to be seen as unit leader and therefor trained to lead mens in NCO schools. In basic unit level, wich is the company or battery, the are also platoon leaders, and unit-officer to deal these issues. The commisariaty really doesent bring anything new or important to this field to justify its existence.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I do get what you're saying, that doesn't really change things much though. For one the commissar is largely a non-combat role as I understand. However, I think the commissar could be effective in coordinating the lower officers to make sure everything is in line, so to speak. I don't believe they'll ditch the dual-leadership system like that either. I think, like everything else, they'll adapt it to fit their changing needs.

Well It could be...but then it would mean that PLA training is really, really poor...and of what is important in training of any armies, it is the officer corps training. I refuse to belive that any army as such large profile as PLA would be led bu incompetent and under trained officers.

But in other hand, in the sense you would say that the reason was the training, becouse in the trainings when you repeatedly follow the scientifical warfare doctrines (that both V-SSSR and PLA are famous of) and how to conduct them properly with the commisar, you get little attention paid to the training to deal with rabidly changing situations or emphasis the officer corps individual skills so that best out of their indpendent decission making and inteligence could be exploided.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not too sure about any specific problems with either war, I'm curious if you could point these out and maybe point out how it relates to the dual-leadership system. After all, inflexibility and stiffness could even be an extension of a poor strategy and so it doesn't really matter on the tactical level.

Yeah, I do get what you're saying, that doesn't really change things much though. For one the commissar is largely a non-combat role as I understand. However, I think the commissar could be effective in coordinating the lower officers to make sure everything is in line, so to speak. I don't believe they'll ditch the dual-leadership system like that either. I think, like everything else, they'll adapt it to fit their changing needs.

Click to expand...

Well if the commisar is lowered to "non-combatant cordinator" role, then it would fundamentally change the situation, to better IMO. The idea of "dual-leadership" is in effect two equal (or contradicting juristiction) persons making the calls and thats not workable in military units.

Well, I'm not too sure about any specific problems with either war, I'm curious if you could point these out and maybe point out how it relates to the dual-leadership system. After all, inflexibility and stiffness could even be an extension of a poor strategy and so it doesn't really matter on the tactical level.

Click to expand...

Well I'm not familiar to the spesific incidences so I can only make assumptions based on the general data availble to the public. But if the strategical level decisions and choises are made poorly, then in the operational level the damage can be corrected if the units lower in the chain-of-command can adopt to the situation and not tied to the doctrines of "scientifical warfare". With dual-leader system where one of the leader is specially assigned to secure that the unit conducts the official politic doctrines hardly allows that.

Well if the commisar is lowered to "non-combatant cordinator" role, then it would fundamentally change the situation, to better IMO. The idea of "dual-leadership" is in effect two equal (or contradicting juristiction) persons making the calls and thats not workable in military units.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't think it's really dual-leadership, at least, not the way it's used in the PLA now.

Well I'm not familiar to the spesific incidences so I can only make assumptions based on the general data availble to the public. But if the strategical level decisions and choises are made poorly, then in the operational level the damage can be corrected if the units lower in the chain-of-command can adopt to the situation and not tied to the doctrines of "scientifical warfare". With dual-leader system where one of the leader is specially assigned to secure that the unit conducts the official politic doctrines hardly allows that.

Click to expand...

I've already asked this several times, but do you have any reason to believe "scientific warfare" is required of the commanders and it's considered treason to drift from it? At least, in the PLA.

As far as I know, PLA is leaning heavily and traditionally towards this so called "scientific warfare". By it I mean the general ideology towards warfighting which is common in most of the communistic armies, regardless wheter its from the soviet or chinese block. In PLA's case this is the "peoples war" and all symphtoms assigned to it. The political commisar system is one of them.
The term "scientifical warfare" is sort of nickname to this sort of politically motivated strategical thinking which ties all elements of the army to follow certain ideologically based doctrine which usually is deliberatly made opposite than in "bourgerous" armies. PLA is from its structure, organisation and untill now from its doctrines a schoolbook model of this. The dual-leadership factor is one of the most obvious elements of this.

I have strong reasons to belive that yeas PLA officers are still quite much tied to the overall doctrines of PLA, it would be silly to assume othervice. All changes in doctrines and operational philosofies starts from organisational changes and sofar there haven't been any singh of that. Is drift from your basic orders and code of conduct a treason? Well at least its a service-crime.

In PLA's case this is the "peoples war" and all symphtoms assigned to it.

Click to expand...

People's war is a more defensive strategy. It is also not evident as I can tell. I believe the Sino-Vietnamese War and probably the Sino-Indian War was not using the idea of people's war. Considering that is most often what they trained for, it's possible that is the cause of their inflexibility and stiffness. They weren't trained for the kind of warfare they took part in.

The people's war is more of an ideology than actual concrete strategy. Even if you train for the right type of warfare, Inflexibility and stiffnes can ruin your day if you are not able to make fast adoptions which any battlefield requires. And thats all down to the leadership structure.