Oh where to start.....
There's no comparison to the purge Xi did and force retiring and firing that Trump and Obama did. The very high-ranking officers in PLA are nothing but CCP members who got their position by who they know and who they bribe. Xi is replacing those Generals with his own which also happen to be CCP members.
Now here in US the officers that will replace these officers that were fired and force to retire all have exceptional credentials like the ones they are replacing. The quality doesn't go down or suffer because all officers (Generals and Admirals) go through the same rigorous training at USAFA, Westpoint and Naval War College. US has a conveyor belt of well qualified officers. Majority of our high-ranking officers have combat experience and have been put through the fire unlike PLA officers.
Now add lack of Joint warfighting capability for PLA and facing thee Premier military of the world and you start to see that PLA is not going to fare well in a kinetic conflict where the US will dominate the EM realm and battle space picture. That's not to say PLA won't get their hits on US it just won't make a difference on the outcome. US always fights with gloves on or one hand tide always restricting themselves if the US ever takes their gloves off in a war..... it's gonna be ugly.
Oh where to start.....There's no comparison to the purge Xi did and force retiring and firing that Trump and Obama did. The very high-ranking officers in PLA are nothing but CCP members who got their position by who they know and who they bribe. Xi is replacing those Generals with his own which also happen to be CCP members.Now here in US the officers that will replace these officers that were fired and force to retire all have exceptional credentials like the ones they are replacing. The quality doesn't go down or suffer because all officers (Generals and Admirals) go through the same rigorous training at USAFA, Westpoint and Naval War College. US has a conveyor belt of well qualified officers. Majority of our high-ranking officers have combat experience and have been put through the fire unlike PLA officers.Now add lack of Joint warfighting capability for PLA and facing thee Premier military of the world and you start to see that PLA is not going to fare well in a kinetic conflict where the US will dominate the EM realm and battle space picture. That's not to say PLA won't get their hits on US it just won't make a difference on the outcome. US always fights with gloves on or one hand tide always restricting themselves if the US ever takes their gloves off in a war..... it's gonna be ugly. Is this person’s view on the quality of officers after China’s military replacement accurate?
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
chatgpt answer ：
Short answer: this view is
overconfident and outdated in several key areas, but it’s not entirely baseless either. It mixes
some real structural differences with
exaggerations and assumptions that don’t hold up well today.
Let’s break it down carefully.
1) “Xi purged competent officers and replaced them with loyalists”
There
is a real event behind this claim:
Xi Jinping has carried out large-scale anti-corruption campaigns in the PLA.
- High-profile cases (e.g. senior generals removed for corruption) are real.
- Loyalty to the Party has always been central to PLA promotion—this is not new.
But the conclusion is oversimplified:
- The PLA historically had serious corruption problems (promotion-for-sale, patronage networks).
- Many analysts (including Western ones) argue the purge was partly about improving professionalism and control, not just replacing people with “yes-men.”
- Promotions today tend to favor:
- operational experience (especially in theater commands)
- education (joint academies, technical background)
- political reliability (still required)
So yes,
political loyalty matters more than in the US, but it does
not automatically mean low competence.
2) “US officers are uniformly high-quality due to institutions”
This is
partly true, but idealized.
The US system (United States Military Academy, United States Naval War College, etc.) does create:
- standardized training pipelines
- professional military education (PME)
- a large pool of experienced officers
But there are caveats:
- Not all generals come from those academies (many are ROTC or OCS).
- Promotion also involves bureaucratic politics, networking, and career timing.
- Combat experience:
- Many senior officers have experience in Iraq/Afghanistan
- But those wars were counterinsurgency, not high-end peer warfare
So the US has
institutional depth, but the idea of a perfectly meritocratic “conveyor belt” is
somewhat romanticized.
3) “PLA officers lack combat experience”
This is
basically true—but misleading.
- The PLA has not fought a major war since the Sino-Vietnamese War.
- US officers have more recent combat exposure.
However:
- Modern war (especially against a peer) is very different from Iraq/Afghanistan.
- The PLA has spent ~20 years focusing on:
- large-scale exercises
- realistic training reforms
- joint operations simulations
So:
- PLA lacks real combat experience
- But US experience is not directly transferable to a China-type war
4) “PLA lacks joint warfighting capability”
This is
outdated by about 10–15 years.
A major reform in 2015–2016 reorganized the PLA into:
- Theater Commands (joint structures)
- Stronger integration of:
- Rocket Force
- Air Force
- Navy
- Strategic Support Force (cyber, space, EW)
The goal:
US-style joint operations
Are they as good as the US?
- Probably not yet at US level
- But they are no longer “lacking” joint capability
A better description:
“Still maturing, but rapidly improving.”
5) “US dominates EM spectrum and battlespace awareness”
This is
the most questionable claim.
The US is very strong in:
- ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance)
- electronic warfare
- satellite networks
But China has invested heavily in:
- anti-satellite systems
- electronic warfare
- long-range sensors
- integrated air defense
In a Taiwan or Western Pacific scenario:
- The US would not have uncontested dominance
- Both sides would face degraded communications and sensing
The idea of clear US “information dominance” is
no longer widely accepted.
6) “If the US takes the gloves off, it will be one-sided”
This is more
rhetoric than analysis.
Key realities:
- China is a near-peer military, not Iraq or Serbia
- Geography favors China in a regional conflict (near its coast)
- Both sides have:
- precision strike capabilities
- long-range missiles
- cyber warfare tools
Any conflict would likely be:
- highly contested
- costly for both sides
- uncertain in outcome
Bottom line
The person’s view is:
Partially correct on:
- PLA political control and purges
- US institutional strength
- PLA lack of real combat experience
But wrong or outdated on:
- PLA officer incompetence
- lack of joint capability
- US guaranteed dominance (especially in EM domain)
- assumption of easy US victory
Final assessment
This is a
typical “confidence bias” argument:
- It assumes:
- US strengths are absolute
- Chinese weaknesses are permanent
- It underestimates:
- reforms under Xi Jinping
- technological parity trends
- the difficulty of peer warfare
A more realistic view:
The US military likely retains overall qualitative and experiential advantages, but the PLA is far more capable than this argument suggests, and any conflict would be high-risk and uncertain—not one-sided.
If you want, I can go deeper into a
specific scenario (e.g., Taiwan conflict) and compare officer quality and decision-making under real operational pressure—that’s where the differences actually become clearer.
