Zhandos Bolatbek
Toronto in his article “Why Professionalize? Economic Modernization and Military Professionalism” argues that states with higher human capital, urbanization, and economic wealth levels are more likely to professionalize.
Toronto states: “Now, more than ever, states and societies are concerned with the efficient use of military resources, and the information age has made the adverse consequences of military operations even more acute.”
Annie Kowalewski puts forward why the world’s most powerful military, the US, should learn about military modernization from Chinese army.
China has been the most prominent state in the world in terms of its rate of accruing economic wealth and the swift rise of its middle class. Along with the economic modernization it has also been modernizing its army.
As this age of information demands, China has been investing its efforts at enhancing its asymmetrical technological advantage. US Department of Defense reported that China is “developing its counter-space, offensive cyber operations, and electronic warfare capabilities meant to deny adversaries the advantages of modern, information technology-driven warfare.” For the Chinese Army priorities now include winning “informational local wars” and merge cyber- and space-related training into its military program.
Since December 2015, Chinese Army, People’s Liberation Army, has altered its structure of command. According to the Chinese military reforms, 7 Theatre Commands have been established according to their geographical proximity. Each of these Theatre Commands are obliged to oversee potential threats in their own regions and have to coordinate their efforts with other Theatre Commands. The shift from Soviet-style centralized command allows for more flexibility and coordination in the defense efforts.
However, there has been long held view that Chinese military is a “Paper Tiger”, that is, Chinese military looks strong and capable at the first glance, but only to that extent. Those viewing Chinese army as Paper Tiger underscore that compared to the US Army, which has had extensive and intensive experience of fighting in combat, Chinese army lacks just that. And that gives US an upper hand.
On the other hand, for the past decade and more, the US army has mostly been used to fighting and containing insurgency threats. As the author of the article argues: “The training necessary to combat insurgent groups with limited weaponry greatly differs from the training necessary to operate and utilize high-end technologies against a modern adversary. The Department of Defense’s entrenched bureaucracy also makes it difficult to adapt to new types of threats that require a quicker response time.”
__________
Reference:
Toronto, Nathan W. “Why Professionalize? Economic Modernization and Military Professionalism”. Foreign Policy Analysis.
Toronto in his article “Why Professionalize? Economic Modernization and Military Professionalism” argues that states with higher human capital, urbanization, and economic wealth levels are more likely to professionalize.
Toronto states: “Now, more than ever, states and societies are concerned with the efficient use of military resources, and the information age has made the adverse consequences of military operations even more acute.”
Annie Kowalewski puts forward why the world’s most powerful military, the US, should learn about military modernization from Chinese army.
China has been the most prominent state in the world in terms of its rate of accruing economic wealth and the swift rise of its middle class. Along with the economic modernization it has also been modernizing its army.
As this age of information demands, China has been investing its efforts at enhancing its asymmetrical technological advantage. US Department of Defense reported that China is “developing its counter-space, offensive cyber operations, and electronic warfare capabilities meant to deny adversaries the advantages of modern, information technology-driven warfare.” For the Chinese Army priorities now include winning “informational local wars” and merge cyber- and space-related training into its military program.
Since December 2015, Chinese Army, People’s Liberation Army, has altered its structure of command. According to the Chinese military reforms, 7 Theatre Commands have been established according to their geographical proximity. Each of these Theatre Commands are obliged to oversee potential threats in their own regions and have to coordinate their efforts with other Theatre Commands. The shift from Soviet-style centralized command allows for more flexibility and coordination in the defense efforts.
However, there has been long held view that Chinese military is a “Paper Tiger”, that is, Chinese military looks strong and capable at the first glance, but only to that extent. Those viewing Chinese army as Paper Tiger underscore that compared to the US Army, which has had extensive and intensive experience of fighting in combat, Chinese army lacks just that. And that gives US an upper hand.
On the other hand, for the past decade and more, the US army has mostly been used to fighting and containing insurgency threats. As the author of the article argues: “The training necessary to combat insurgent groups with limited weaponry greatly differs from the training necessary to operate and utilize high-end technologies against a modern adversary. The Department of Defense’s entrenched bureaucracy also makes it difficult to adapt to new types of threats that require a quicker response time.”
__________
Reference:
Toronto, Nathan W. “Why Professionalize? Economic Modernization and Military Professionalism”. Foreign Policy Analysis.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/what-america-can-learn-chinas-peoples-liberation-army-20239?page=3
