U.S. policy and war planning circles may be relying on a flawed understanding of China's military decision-making, according to an analysis published by War on the Rocks. The piece, drawing on observations from a recent conference on the People's Liberation Army, notes that researchers and wargame participants consistently ask the same narrow question: how China would react to specific U.S. force posture changes or strikes in defined locations.
The author, who has participated in dozens of unclassified wargames at the RAND Corporation, argues that while understanding likely Chinese responses is a legitimate and necessary goal, the current approach misses critical context. By repeatedly focusing on tactical reactions to U.S. actions, the analysis suggests the broader strategic, doctrinal, and political factors shaping Chinese military behavior are being under-examined.
This lopsided focus carries direct implications for U.S. deterrence and alliance posture in the Indo-Pacific. If American planners base contingencies on an incomplete assessment of adversary logic, the resulting force posture or escalation pathways could prove miscalibrated.
The critique aligns with long-standing concerns among China watchers that U.S. wargaming culture tends to overemphasize kinetic triggers while undervaluing Chinese concepts like political work, non-kinetic warfare, and strategic patience. However, the piece offers no new evidence to substantiate how large these blind spots may be in actual military planning.
A counter argument holds that tactical wargaming serves a specific, narrow purpose for operational planners, and that deeper strategic analysis occurs separately within intelligence agencies and service war colleges outside the unclassified wargame environment. The author does not address whether such compartmented work already accounts for the missing dimensions.