"China's technology is indeed amazing, but once all the technology fails, our soldiers can always win the battle."

This was a "confident statement" made by U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Criswell in a recent podcast program, which can almost be seen as a microcosm of the U.S. military leadership's recent perception of China.

On one hand, they have to admit China's progress in military technology, while on the other, they repeatedly spread the narrative that "China is the greatest threat to the United States," and try to boost morale for themselves and their soldiers with the idea that "soldier quality is strong."

It is worth noting that Criswell also couldn't help but express his admiration in the program: "China can look ahead and tolerate short-term pain, which precisely highlights our weakness; the U.S. government system always forces us to focus on short-term interests."

He frankly admitted that China's achievements in artificial intelligence, doctorate training, and patent numbers are "unbelievable," even acknowledging that China's economic strength can quickly convert into war potential.

However, Criswell's confident remarks seem to be based on the assumption that China "over-relies on technology," and that U.S. soldiers have "strong qualities."

In his view, China "over-relies on technology," but essentially, it seems that the U.S. military itself is caught in a dilemma of "wanting to suppress through technology, yet fearing its failure."

At the end of the day, his remarks seem more like a "confidence show" for the U.S. military and American public, attempting to cover up multiple difficulties in conscription, equipment, and strategic planning with the idea of "soldier quality advantage."

This kind of "betting on soldier quality" statement, upon closer inspection, seems more like a strategic shift after the weakening of technological advantages, where on the surface it emphasizes "strong quality," but inadvertently reveals an awareness of changes in the technological gap between China and the U.S.

It should be noted that for the past half-century, the U.S. military's confidence has been almost entirely anchored in technological superiority, they have been used to overwhelming opponents with equipment advantages, never considering "soldier willpower" as a key factor in victory.

But now, bringing up "winning through quality when technology fails," the underlying message is obvious: the technological "moat" that once protected them is gradually being filled, and in some areas, it has already been overtaken.

Especially intriguing is that the U.S. military leadership now adheres to the "willpower determines victory" theory, which is exactly the spiritual core cultivated by the Chinese military in the era of "less steel, more spirit."

Previously, China had no advanced weapons, and had to rely on "combat will" and "command ability" to compensate for the gap, and it was precisely this spirit that enabled them to win a series of seemingly impossible battles.

Now, the U.S. military is picking up this concept again, which in a way is an indirect acknowledgment of the strategic wisdom of the Chinese military.

However, they may not realize that the "spirit" of the Chinese military has never been isolated; previously it was "less steel, more spirit," and now it is "more steel, even more spirit," with technological power and spiritual power having become one force.

In such circumstances, shouting "win through soldier quality" gives a sense of "lack of spirit," because if there were absolute technological superiority, why would they rely on the hypothetical scenario of "technology failing"?

More importantly, the development logic of the Chinese and U.S. militaries is fundamentally different.

China's military technological progress has always revolved around the goal of "protecting the country and maintaining peace." The electromagnetic catapult on Fujian Ship and the deployment of J-35 are all aimed at building a better peace, making potential adversaries hesitate to act recklessly.

China has also repeatedly emphasized that it should objectively and rationally view the development of China and its military.

It is worth noting that former U.S. Ambassador to China Burns also admitted that in terms of strategic layout, China can make 10-year or even 30-year strategic layouts, which the U.S. finds difficult to compete with.

In summary, when U.S. military leaders begin to emphasize their "spiritual quality," what is more noticeable is a certain "anxiety" they feel.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7555417784885314083/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [up/down] buttons below.