KWIC special news of November 7: At present, the Chinese military theorists are holding the unprecedentedly active discussions that center on the reform in the military command structure, system, and establishment. The Chinese National Defence University and the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences are found to be the major arenas for these discussions. A number of young scholars who pursued their advanced studies in the USA and the Western European countries in the 1980s and 1990s have come to question in a more and more open manner the structure of the military regions and the functions of the Headquarters of the General Staff. They also strongly call for the changes in the existing rules and regulations on the basic military structure during the new military reform.The basic viewpoints of the above scholars on certain areas have become a certain trend of thought, which has attracted the attention of the high-ranking military officials. In the area of the reform in the command structure, the scholars with the US or Western European educational background believe it very outmoded to have the Headquarters of the General Staff and the military regions both in charge of the operational command and army building at the same time. The main problems are the duplicated departments, overelaborate procedures, and absence of clear distinction in each other's functions. According to the source of a military background, only at the time of maneuvers, do the military regions ( Jun Qu) command their respective maneuvers through the temporarily established "command post for the combined operations of the three military services (the army, navy, and air force)", which is called the "military command" ( Zhan Qu). For the inland military regions, the above mentioned command post for the combined operations and maneuvers only includes the ground army and the air force. However, in peacetime, such a command organization does not exist in the military regions.
This means that the establishment of the "command post for the combined operations of the three military services" at the level of the military regions marks the major distinction between the "military command" and the "military region". Obviously, the intention of setting up the "military command" is to hold it exclusively responsible for the operational command. This separates the "military command" from a variety of complicated functions of the "military regions" such as military administration, army building, and management etc..
The analysis of the source stresses that the Chinese army is considering the future establishment of the "command post for the combined operations of the three military services" , or called the "command post for the combined operations of all the services", in the "military regions" even in peacetime. That is to make the "military regions" function as a "military command" even in peacetime. This reform will not only happen to the military regions. After the restructuring of the military command system, the "command system for the combined operations of the three military services", or the "command system for the combined operations of all the military services", should also be set up even in such units as the strategic directions, "military subareas", and campaign directions all of which are under the military region. That means making the "military subareas" the "branches of the military command". In the same manner, the combined logistics department for the three services should be established, too, at different levels so as to keep pace with the reform in the other areas.
In addition to the above main trend of thought, the Chinese army has also worked hard in recent years on the study of several parts of the Russian theory on army building. Personnel were sent from the Chinese Defence University to the Military University affiliated to the Russian Headquarters of General Staff for the study of the relevant theory. The strong interest is especially in Russia's abolishment of the military regions and in its classification of the functions of the former military regions as setting the "strategic directions". Some of those who studied in Russia feel that what Russia did is "worth learning". However, the above source of analysis holds a personal opinion that the "complete abolishment" of the military regions and the concept of establishing in an all-rounded way the "strategic direction" similar to that of Russia involve a wide range of areas, have great repercussions, and are unrealistic.
Another consideration made by the scholars with the US and the Western European educational background indicates that it is far from enough only to restructure the military regions and to set up the command system for the combined operations of the three services in peacetime. This reform should be carried out "both consistently from the high to the low level and completely in the whole military system". It should involve the highest command unit. That is to say that in peacetime, the command mechanism of the Headquarters of the General Staff should be adjusted in order for the organization to become the "highest headquarters of the staff for the combined operations of the three services". All the administrative and army building functions currently exercised by the Headquarters of the General Staff should be passed down to the headquarters of different military services. The military scholars believe that this change will become the major direction of reform.
The public news media of Hong Kong once reported that the discussions were held in the Chinese army about the abolishment of all the military regions and the establishment of the "Joint Chiefs of Staff" system in the US style. Judged from the above movements, the Chinese army may make some adjustments to its functions, the so-called "structural optimization", while continuing to maintain the existing structure without thoroughly remolding it ( Aandri Pinkov).
