Even as China embarks on a massive military buildup, America comforts itself with an ironclad belief: As with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, superior Communist numbers will be undercut by rigid command and clumsy tactics that can be exploited by more agile U.S. forces.
But what if China embraces the more flexible Western concept of mission command?
“A Chinese military that fully embraces mission command would likely lead to improved operational performance, with quicker decision-making, better adaptability, and greater resilience in the face of degraded C4ISR,” according to a new report by Rand Corporation.
There is evidence that Chinese military reformers are beginning to push for the People’s Liberation Army to adopt mission command, researchers warn in the U.S. think tank’s Oct. 22 report. A more flexible, decentralized Chinese system would be more resistant to U.S. tactics such as attacking command and control centers. In turn, the report suggests, this would force the U.S. to revise its strategy.
The concept of mission command essentially means commanders expressing the general intent of the mission, leaving subordinates to use their own judgment on how to implement those goals. It is an approach that worked well for the Germans in World War II and works well for the Israel Defense Forces today, enabling initiative and rapid decisions while their opponents waited for orders from higher command. Today’s U.S. military — in theory at least — embraces mission command, despite frequent concerns that commanders micromanage their subordinates.
China’s political leaders have long worried that the effectiveness of their armed forces are being undermined by rigid and over-centralized command, unrealistic training and widespread corruption. A 2023 Pentagon report pointed to “genuine anxieties among PRC [People’s Republic of China] leaders about the PLA’s readiness and ability to conduct joint operations if tested under real combat conditions.” China’s president Xi Jinping has conducted repeated purges of senior officers, with nine generals and officials recently expelled as part of an anticorruption drive.
For now, reformers are gingerly testing the waters, with mission command appearing in select units such as special operations forces and warships operating in distant waters, according to the Rand report’s authors.
“There is ample evidence that Chinese military strategists are advocating for institutional PLA adoption of mission command,” Nathan Beauchamp-Mustafaga, who co-authored the Rand study, told Defense News. “And that some PLA units are experimenting with mission command in some PLA exercises, but it is unclear so far how widely mission command is being adopted throughout the PLA.”
Controlling the military is a dilemma for any authoritarian government. The military is usually the force that props up the regime — and is the one force that can overthrow it. In Nazi Germany, for example, the armed forces, or Wehrmacht, were made to swear an oath to Adolf Hitler rather than Germany itself.
Similarly, the PLA is not the armed forces of the Chinese nation, but rather the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party. Commissars sharing command with regular officers at every level — from army headquarters to submarines on patrol — enable the CCP to keep an eye on the military. For the PLA, the “first and primary responsibility is to ensure the continued survival of the CCP regime, and generally to faithfully follow the orders of the CCP leadership,” Rand researchers noted.
The report’s authors see three options for China. For the U.S. and its allies, the most dangerous would be for the Chinese military to fully adopt mission command, the report suggests.
“The U.S. way of war has historically focused on degrading adversary C2 [command and control],” the report notes. “A PLA that embraces mission command is likely to be much more resilient against such U.S. strategies, requiring adapting or developing new U.S. approaches.”
One way for the U.S. to impede Chinese adoption of mission command is to avoid joint exercises.
“Potential PLA exposure to successful foreign command practices should be a factor when U.S. allies and partners consider undertaking a bilateral or multilateral exercise with the PLA,” the authors suggest.
Another option is partial adoption of mission command, perhaps out of skepticism that Chinese commanders are capable of fully implementing the concept. Some units, such as special operations and warships, would enjoy some degree of operational freedom (though nuclear, space and cyber forces would likely remain tightly controlled). However, this could be problematic if “inadequate implementation and organizational dynamics lead to a faulty hybrid of centralized and mission command that result in inconsistent PLA operational performance,” the study states.
It could also increase the chance of war.
“A PLA command structure that empowers lower-level command while not improving command capability and discipline could result in more aggressive and self-interested behavior, without central PLA leadership direction,” the report warns.
On the other hand, China’s leaders may simply decide that it’s safer to keep the existing system of tight command. This may involve more frequent use of “skip echelon,” where military and political leaders bypass the chain of command and issue orders directly to lower-level formations. This option would show “CCP desires for political control outweigh any acknowledged benefits for operational performance, leading to slow, more brittle PLA command,” according to the report.
Still, voices within the Chinese military may still carefully call for reform.
“The CCP will almost certainly continue to prioritize Party control, as evident in recent purges of PLA senior leadership,” Beauchamp-Mustafaga said. “But PLA advocates of mission command would argue that Beijing can have its cake and eat it too. Decentralized execution while retaining high levels of Party control when it matters.”
Michael Peck is a correspondent for Defense News and a columnist for the Center for European Policy Analysis. He holds an M.A. in political science from Rutgers University. Find him on X at @Mipeck1. His email is [email protected].
Read the full article here
