then Add to Home Screen.
With a potential conflict on the horizon, the Department of War is prioritizing preserving its key military advantage over China — U.S. command and control, or C2.
However, as warfare changes, both militaries are adapting.
No longer can the United States rely on the superior Chinese numbers being undercut by rigid command and clumsy tactics that can be exploited by more agile U.S. forces.
Which begs the question, 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 the RAND Corporation, a think tank specializing in military matters.
“Mission Command with Chinese Characteristics?” explores how the Chinese military thinks about future C2, leading to speculation that the Chinese military might shift from its traditional centralized command structure to a more decentralized “mission command” approach.
A 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 United States to revise its strategy.
The concept of mission command, developed in the 19th century, allows subordinate leaders in Western militaries flexibility in implementing a commander’s intent. In contrast, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army employs a strict, top-down structure that does not allow for interpretation.
China’s political leaders have long worried that the effectiveness of their armed forces is being undermined by rigid and over-centralized command, unrealistic training, and widespread corruption.
A 2023 Pentagon report pointed to “genuine anxieties among People’s Republic of China leaders about the PLA’s readiness and ability to conduct joint operations if tested under real combat conditions.”
The RAND Report's authors see three options for China. For the United States 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,” the report notes. “A PLA that embraces mission command is likely to be much more resilient against such U.S. strategies.”
One way for the United States 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.
A second option is a hybrid model of mission command. Some units, such as special operations and warships, would have some operational freedom. However, this could lead to a faulty hybrid of centralized and mission command that results 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.
Finally, China’s leaders may determine to stay the course and keep the existing system of tight command, but with more frequent use of “skip echelon,” where military and political leaders bypass the chain of command and issue orders directly to lower-level formations.
The reports states that any change may not drastically alter the bottom line as Chinese Communist Party President Xi Jinping encourages innovation in technology and weapon development rather than creative thinking that might deviate from party guidelines.
“The CCP will almost certainly continue to prioritize Party control, as evident in recent purges of PLA senior leadership,” one of the report’s authors, Nathan 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.”
- By Michael Metz
