xinhui

The Chinese Military’s Strategic Mind-set
Lieutenant Colonel Timothy L. Thomas, U.S. Army, Retired

Based on readings of recent Chinese military literature, an expert offers an illuminating peek into the rising power’s strategic modus operandi.

November-December 2007


Col, this is from the latest issue of US army war college mil-review by one of our old CDF member Tim Thomas, remember him? the same gent who posted photos PLA art works few years ago.

I need to read it a few times and gain a good understanding of this article before forwarding my 2 yuan.

xinhui

Noted he cited primary Chinese sources including the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Officer’s Handbook instead some cheesy translation of the art of war.

Officer of Engineers

Col Thomas certainly does his homework. I've just glimpsed it. It looks like I have alot of heavy reading to do.

__________________
Chimo

Inst

How does this tie into known Chinese uses of force? Can we apply this knowledge to known examples?

Officer of Engineers

1979 1st Sino-Vietnam War. The target was not Hanoi but Moscow. By attacking Vietnam, Beijing broke the Soviet encirclement of China.

zraver

I will do some reading but a possible current example is the PLAN. By blowing up like a puffer fish it makes the US, India, Taiwan and Japan nervous and set a climate where China appears to be a rival for the US thus shaping regional thinking. However who exactly does China think she needs the ZTZ-99 against? There is only one major source of possible ground conflict for China.

Inst

I'm a bit stupid, so could you elucidate further? How does 1979 tie into Chinese concepts of strategy? Would a country with a different mindset not opt to invade Vietnam?

zraver

In the 60's the USSR and PRC clashed and it set up a rivalry between the two communist mega states. China resolved to emerge from the Soviet shadow, merely becoming a US client wasn't a long term solution. By punishing a Soviet client state China asserted that is was a dominant power in its own right and able to exercise power beyond its own borders in defiance of a super power becuase it was an equal.

Inst

Like I said, I'm a bit stupid. I don't see how it's an application of the traits mentioned in the article. One idea I get from "The Chinese Military's Strategic Mind-set" is that the Chinese military's strategic mindset is more sophisticated than the Western or Russian version. It doesn't seem an order of magnitude in difference, but it's advanced enough to yield a better quality of decision on a strategic level.

Perhaps that's the thing. The mind-set mentioned in the article cannot be indicated by the blunt shape of any action, but has to be inferred from the texture and color of a given action. It's a more subtle thing to perceive than the insertion of an army group.

Officer of Engineers

What other power would think to defeat Moscow by marching against Hanoi?

entropy

USA?

__________________
If memory serves...

Inst

Like I said, I'm very stupid. You're being too subtle for me, but I think what I'm supposed to understand is that no other nation would have been creative enough to attack Vietnam in order to strike at the Soviet Union, and that, if the planning staff of other countries were given the task, they would choose a more conventional route.

Still, what I think here is that this is better described not as Chinese, but simply, as "smart".

zraver

Not better, just different- the American approach can be summed up in two terms the "carrot" or the "stick", not the or the "trick". Western action is usually pretty direct with concrete triggers that lead to very spelled out reactions good and bad. This a direct outgrowth of European and then American/Soviet hard power (guns, science, transoceanic navigation, industry, etc.)

Th last great western power to use an indirect approach to diplomacy was the Byzantine Empire. Even the great European diplomats and thier diplomacy (Peel, Bismark, Disraeli) relied on interlocking levers that would trigger direct clashes and action against each other in order to achieve thier goals.

Also you need to separate the jingoism (chaff) from the wheat. Talk about targeting an enemies computer networks via a third party is not new nor is it very robust. It might also point to a certain blind spot in thier strategic thinking. There is a trait I have noticed among many posters from emerging powers to assume that the currently powerful are decadent and weak. They then engage in braggadocio that over estimates thier capabilities and under estimates the enemies constitution and ability to not just withstand an attack but strike back.

Assume for what ever reason that the US and China end up at war and China uses a cell of Nigerian hackers to totally collapse 80% of America's computer networks. In the end so what, all that was lost was money and record most of which can be put back together by hand, did a single roll of toilet paper or bullet physically vanish- no of course not. Even if China causes a cascading failure of the power grid that puts America in the dark for months it is only temporary, no matter how hard life is until,the grid comes back up. Now what about the American response? China will still have thier physical assets devastated and find itself with a problem socially/domestically many time more painful than the social and domestic problems they caused in America.

In this case the cat that just licked the pepper and burned his mouth goes mousing because his cat eyes had earlier saw the mouse raising peppers and his ears heard the mouse tell his buddies,"hey watch this." This is America's ultimate edge- the claws and teeth are nice but it is information dominance before as well as during a conflict. 9-11 woke up the US's spy agencies and made the importance of knowing what current and potential enemies where thinking.

This article is less about China's capabilities to the Chinese but a shot across thier bows that says we are watching. If a public forum like this can discuss what the article means, what are the official policy wonks with super computers, professionals staffs, humint/elint access saying?

No I am not saying the indirect approach doesn't work, only that it has limits. I am simply calling it what it is- a power multiplier- not a power substitute.

Officer of Engineers

Ok, my mind is fried because of the season rush but I will give the gist of the evidence

1) The Sino-Soviet Friendship Treaty was not renewed only months before the war.

2) The Soviet encirclement of China was complete with Vietnam. The Soviet Army in the North. The Pacific Ocean to the West, India to the south and east, and Vietnam to the south.

3) The 38GA and the 39GA stayed north.

4) 3 Vietnamese capitals were destroyed by so called 2nd rate Chinese troops.

5) Deng Xia Peng did not blink at the casualties.

Zraver,

Col Thomas is well known in his publications about Soviet/Russian campaigns in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

gunnut

It's not smart or better, just a totally different mindset.

Like what zraver said, western thinking is very direct. We say what we mean and we mean what we say. We don't beat around the bushes and use a bushel of hints to kinda nudge someone into thinking what we might want to express.

Chinese civilization has been around continuously for 5000 some odd years. The inter personal relationship is very intricate and very refined. No one ever says what's on his mind. No one ever looks the other in the eye. That's considered very confrontational. Instead things are done in a very roundabout way.

I guess that's the easiest way to understand the Chinese thinking. No direct confrontation if at all possible. That's just not done. The west is not used to this kind of diplomacy.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.