Report Questions China’s Military Readiness Despite Modernization

A new report from a U.S. reflection group is sparking debate by suggesting that China’s military modernization, driven by Chinese leader Xi Jinping, is primarily focused on maintaining teh Communist Party’s power rather than preparing for war. The Rand Corp report contrasts with widespread analysis that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is rapidly closing the gap with, or even surpassing, the U.S. military in certain areas. simulations by U.S. defense experts have repeatedly shown the United States would face challenges in a conflict near China, notably concerning Taiwan. The report, though, posits that political considerations may hinder the PLA’s combat effectiveness, especially against a formidable opponent like the U.S.

Under Xi Jinping’s leadership, China has witnessed a period of unprecedented military growth. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA), once considered a weaker force in Asia, has undergone significant transformation, now rivaling the U.S. Armed Forces in several key areas, according to numerous analysts. This rapid expansion has led to concerns and close scrutiny from international observers, especially regarding China’s intentions and capabilities.

Despite these advancements, a report released last month by Rand Corp, a Washington-based think tank, suggests that the Communist Party’s desire to maintain control over both the military and Chinese society could undermine the PLA’s performance in actual combat scenarios, particularly against a well-equipped adversary like the United States. The report delves into the intricacies of the PLA’s structure and priorities, raising questions about its true readiness for modern warfare.

Political Priorities vs. Military Objectives

Timothy Heath, a China expert at Rand, authored the report, titled “The Chinese Military’s Doubtful Combat Readiness.” He argues that the PLA’s primary focus remains on preserving the dominance of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), rather than preparing for potential armed conflicts. Heath states, “The PLA remains fundamentally focused on maintaining the dominance of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) instead of preparing for war.”

Heath further suggests that China’s military modernization efforts are primarily intended to bolster the CCP regime’s credibility and appeal, thereby reducing the likelihood of war. “China’s military modernization gains are, first of all, to reinforce the appeal and credibility of the CCP regime,” Heath adds, “making the war unlikely.” This perspective challenges the conventional wisdom that China’s military buildup is solely aimed at projecting power and achieving territorial ambitions.

The report highlights that the PLA dedicates a significant portion of its training time—up to 40%—to political indoctrination. This emphasis on political topics detracts from the time available to master essential combat skills, raising concerns about the PLA’s readiness for modern warfare. “The waste of time that could be spent to master the essential skills for combat operations raise even more questions about the preparation of the PLA for modern war,” Heath notes. This allocation of resources raises questions about the balance between political control and military effectiveness within the PLA.

Moreover, PLA units are overseen not only by commanding officers but also by political commissioners. These commissioners prioritize party loyalty over combat effectiveness, perhaps hindering the military’s ability to respond swiftly and flexibly to evolving situations. “A divided command system (…) reduces the capacity of commanders to respond flexibly and quickly to emerging situations,” Heath writes. This dual command structure, a legacy of the PLA’s revolutionary origins, continues to shape its operational dynamics.

Heath concludes that a conventional war between the U.S. and China remains a “remote possibility.” He suggests that Pentagon planners should broaden their focus to encompass a wider range of Chinese threats beyond conventional military capabilities like missiles and bombs. This broader perspective would include cyber warfare, economic coercion, and political influence operations.

Dissenting Voices

Though, Heath’s conclusions have faced criticism from other experts who argue that Xi Jinping has clearly stated his primary military objective: to bring Taiwan under Beijing’s control, by force if necessary. These experts contend that the PLA’s ongoing reinforcement indicates China’s readiness to pursue this objective, despite any internal control concerns. The debate highlights the differing interpretations of China’s strategic intentions and the factors influencing its military progress.

Andrew Erickson, a U.S. Naval College Strategy Professor, challenges the report’s premise, stating, “There are much easier, cheap and lower -risk ways to maximize party safety than the custom combat capabilities that XI seeks concerted

China’s Military Might: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing? An Exclusive Interview

is China’s military modernization a genuine threat, or a carefully crafted illusion designed to bolster the Communist Party’s grip on power?

Senior Editor: Dr.Li Wei, welcome to World Today News. Your expertise on Chinese military strategy is highly regarded. The recent Rand Corporation report raises important questions about the actual combat readiness of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), despite its notable modernization efforts. Could you shed light on this apparent paradox?

Dr. li Wei: Thank you for having me. The Rand report highlights a crucial point frequently enough overlooked in discussions about China’s military capabilities: the inherent tension between the PLA’s modernization drive and the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) overarching goal of maintaining its political dominance. While the PLA has undoubtedly undergone significant technological advancements and numerical expansion, the report accurately points out that these gains might be less about preparing for large-scale conventional warfare and more about projecting an image of strength and reinforcing the CCP’s authority.

Senior Editor: The report suggests that a significant portion of the PLA’s training is dedicated to political indoctrination, potentially hindering the growth of essential combat skills. How significant is this factor in assessing the PLA’s overall military readiness?

Dr. Li Wei: The allocation of up to 40% of training time to political indoctrination is indeed a critical factor. This emphasis on political loyalty over purely military proficiency creates a basic trade-off. While advanced weaponry and equipment are essential for modern warfare, effective military operations require highly skilled personnel capable of adapting to rapidly evolving battlefield conditions.The time spent on political education, though vital for the CCP’s control, directly detracts from the time available for honing crucial combat skills, maneuvers, and strategic thinking. This imbalance raises serious questions about their readiness for complex, high-stakes conflicts.

Senior editor: The report also emphasizes the dual command structure within the PLA,with both military commanders and political commissars exercising authority. How does this system impact operational efficiency and decision-making?

Dr. Li Wei: The dual command structure, a legacy from the PLA’s revolutionary past, creates a potential bottleneck in decision-making.While intended to maintain party control, this system can led to slower responses to dynamic situations. The requirement for consensus between military and political leaders may hinder adaptability and adaptability on the battlefield, crucial elements in modern warfare. This divided command system, while effective in maintaining ideological control, potentially compromises the PLA’s ability to respond swiftly and decisively to unforeseen challenges. This is a key consideration when analyzing overall military effectiveness.

Senior Editor: Some critics argue that overlooking Xi Jinping’s stated goal of reclaiming Taiwan underestimates the PLA’s true combat readiness. How do you reconcile these differing perspectives?

Dr.Li Wei: the ambition to control taiwan is undeniable and a significant driver of China’s military modernization. However, it’s vital to differentiate between stated goals and actual operational capabilities. While the desire to control Taiwan is a clear strategic objective, the PLA’s preparedness for a large-scale invasion, considering the potential challenges and the need for refined combined arms warfare, is an entirely different issue. The internal factors discussed earlier – political priorities competing with military needs, the dual command system, and the time dedicated to political indoctrination – all cast doubt on the PLA’s overall planning for the complexities of modern conflict. The challenges posed by technological and tactical needs for such intervention cannot be underestimated.

Senior Editor: the report suggests that focusing solely on conventional military threats overlooks other potential Chinese strategies, such as cyber warfare and economic coercion. How significant are these non-military strategies in China’s overall approach to achieving its geopolitical goals?

Dr. Li Wei: China increasingly employs a multi-faceted approach to power projection, moving beyond customary military capabilities. Cyber warfare,economic coercion,and information operations are becoming essential tools in achieving strategic aims. These “gray zone” tactics allow China to exert pressure without directly engaging in large-scale military conflict.Effective cybersecurity capabilities, economic leverage, and skilled propaganda and manipulation help maintain control at various levels while minimizing conventional military responses from rivals. An analysis of Chinese capabilities requires therefore evaluation of these diverse aspects of power.

Senior Editor: So, in your view, what is the most accurate assessment of the PLA’s readiness for large-scale conventional warfare?

Dr. Li Wei: The PLA possesses considerable advanced weaponry and a growing military budget. Their military modernization is indeed impressive. Though, the internal dynamics discussed earlier – political control prioritizing over combat proficiency – create a critical limitation. Their ability to effectively coordinate and execute complex military actions against a sophisticated enemy remains questionable. A comprehensive assessment of China’s military readiness must consider these limitations alongside their technological and numerical advancements.

Senior Editor: Dr. Li Wei, thank you for this insightful viewpoint. It’s clear that a nuanced understanding of the PLA’s capabilities requires looking beyond the sheer quantity of military hardware and into the complexities of internal political dynamics and the evolution of Chinese strategic thinking.

What are your thoughts? Share your comments below, or join the conversation on social media using #ChinaMilitaryReadiness.