This is some of the most pointless discussion I have ever heard from someone who is supposedly well-informed in military affairs. Half of the discussion seems to be over the semantical label of who would be the 'aggressor' or the 'defender' in a US intervention over Taiwan, for the sole purpose of trying to shoe-horn that particular contingency into the same shoe as the Ukraine War. There is not even a pretense to even try to argue why the two situations are comparable, and if so, in what way are they comparable, and in what ways are they are actually different. There's no attempt to differentiate the geopolitical environment in the Pacific compared to Europe, the overall balance of power, land vs. naval warfare, the strategic depth of Taiwan compared to Ukraine, so on and so forth. I was hoping for something much more, but instead got the standard CNN/BBC bland reporting.
There is also a blind faith in the media trope that Russia is losing in Ukraine. But I doubt Ukraine is actually winning in reality. Russia is encountering unexpected difficulties, but I would not be betting my life savings on Ukraine staying as a western-aligned state in the near future. There is just so much assumptions going into this that are not necessarily able to be taken at face value by anyone not already drinking their koolaid.
This particular paragraph is particularly non-sensical:
"Because what a lot of people don’t understand about leadership, battle command, and NCO corps is that the essence of the strength of these capabilities is cultural, not technical. It is the willingness of the senior officer to delegate authority and to accept the counsel of a subordinate in their command over their own judgment.
For example, as a general, I had a sergeant major. If I propose to do something and he says, “Sir, that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard,” I have two choices. I can get angry about it or feel as if I’ve lost face, or I can modify my plans based upon the wise counsel that he’s given. In the U.S. system, I gain in stature with my forces by doing that. In some other cultures, that would produce a loss of face and a challenge to authority that could not be countenanced. That’s why you can form an NCO corps, but it may not be as effective in a Russian or a Chinese cultural context as it is in the U.S. context."
I mean, let's assume that 'face' is the most important thing a Chinese or Russian general cares about, as he asserted. Let's assume the senior PLAN officers only care about their social stature. Would you end up 'having more face' if you refused what you understand to be good advice and lose, or if you taken onboard the advice and win? Come one - some basic logic would be appreciated in a conversation with a top US think tank.
It is rather interesting because within Chinese culture, it has been proven time and time again that people respect, or gain face, when they deliver results and participate in teamwork based solutions. In contrast, in American culture, face is gained when someone acts tough and immovable, forcing others to make way for his superior authority.
One most obvious example is during the recent pandemic, Chinese politicians took to asking from help from the medical community, and humbly deferred to their advice, because there is no penalty in admitting they're not the experts.
Within America instead, every local leader came up with their own ways and advices, ranging from disinfectant to horse dewormer, strict lockdowns to denialism. This happened because admitting wrongdoing and listening to others advice is a severe mistake in US culture, whoever doing it would be seen as "weak".
It is the same pervasive cultural flaw that leads to even the terminology within US documents to be corrupted. For example, in a military war game about an American invasion of Taiwan, the US side can face defeat, yet the paper itself will only be able to say China is a "near peer" adversary. Logically, if your forces were defeated, then it is you who is the near peer adversary. But admitting this fact would lead to severe loss of face, so Americans dare not put it in writing.
Try and imagine how big of a handicap this mentality will be in a conflict. It is not just a hypothetical either. This flaw was visible during the Korean War as well. Really, the outnumbered PVA with less tanks, less airplanes, had no business taking an entire country's worth of ground from America, which was at its peak strength. However, once US soldiers were made to retreat, pervasive fear of admitting defeat caused US NCO to vastly exaggerate enemy losses, blinding the generals from knowing the true situation on the ground, opening up US combined arms brigades to being encircled by basic motorized infantry, because their generals were being fed the information that there should be no more PVA, they're all dead because every US NCO reported their squad mowed down hundreds of commies. This was the difference in quality between military professionalism of the PLA and US army in 1950. Of course, US could have leapfrogged since then, but is that really believable that a nation that can't admit inferiority would be able to achieve any feats of such rapid improvement?
What American leaders should think about is, do they have an army capable of withstanding setbacks? Yes, the number of US military is very impressive, more so than the PLA. But do US soldiers possess the resolve to charge into a superior enemy, knowing many of them will die to achieve an objective? If one or several aircraft carriers are sunk, would the US state media be able to explain to the population?
Because if the answers to these questions are no, then what America has is just a huge rotten shack that collapses whenever any force is applied at them. Or a paper tiger if you will.
