China Mil Watch Mandarin-source monitoring · Chinese military & security reporting
Independent monitor
Official PRC military media, read in the original
← Daily Brief
Doctrine Political Work

Eyewitness Accounts of the Consolidation and Training | Theoretical Study Carrying the "Smell of Gunpowder"

亲历者话整训丨带着“硝烟味”的理论学习
PLA Daily (解放军报) 10 August 2026
View original source ↗
During a political consolidation and training (政治整训) cycle, an unidentified PLA Air Force brigade overhauled its headquarters night school (机关夜校) by replacing rote document-reading with combat-problem-driven debate, adopting a 'three do-not-discuss' rule that bars topics disconnected from actual combat readiness, and producing a 'Battlefield Psychological Resilience Training Plan (战场心理韧性训练方案)' piloted in field training. The article documents an institutional effort to close the gap between political work and operational tempo—specifically the problem of agitation cadres who cannot function inside a joint fire strike chain—and records how after-action review findings are now being fed directly into political officer training. The framing points to ongoing PLA-wide pressure to make political work operationally legible rather than procedurally compliant, though the brigade's designation, theater assignment, and whether the psychological training results were independently validated remain unstated.

Theoretical Study Carrying the "Smell of Gunpowder"

■ Dong Shunshuo, Officer, Political Work Department, Certain Air Force Brigade

Deep in the night in midsummer, the lights blazed inside the command tent of a certain Air Force brigade's headquarters element, where a fierce "brainstorming session" with no moderator and no prepared remarks was underway. The topic written on the whiteboard was impossible to ignore: How does political work embed itself into the joint fire strike chain?

"Political work must account for time! Agitation at each node cannot exceed 90 seconds, or it will disrupt the tempo of combat." "In an environment where personnel are highly dispersed, time and space are shifting rapidly, and mental stress is acute, wartime political work must be carried out quickly wherever an opening exists—it demands strong relevance and real effectiveness." …

Sparks of thought flew in all directions as the debate continued. The whiteboard filled up with dense mind maps, and the outline of an "embedded political work operational plan (政治工作嵌入式作战方案)" gradually took shape through the depth of the discussion.

This kind of theoretical study carrying the "smell of gunpowder" moved me deeply.

For a period before this, headquarters theoretical study had looked quite different: each section took turns reading documents aloud; leaders stressed the significance and laid out requirements; those in the audience underlined key points and copied notes; and the meeting adjourned on schedule. On the rare occasions when discussion was organized, one commonly heard empty formalities like "Let me first state my position" and "I found this deeply inspiring." Some comrades were unwilling to truly rack their brains or truly clash on the issues.

Where was the problem? During the political consolidation and training (政治整训), a brigade leader cut straight to the point: theoretical arming cannot merely arm the mouth—it must arm the mind and guide combat readiness. Study divorced from actual-combat requirements can only be wasted effort! We must refine the examination and correction of deviations in the performance-achievement outlook (政绩观) as it relates to combat readiness and warfighting, and make whether something is conducive to raising combat effectiveness the hard standard (硬杠杠) for measuring all work.

In the discussion, I placed myself in the frame and conducted a searching self-examination. I honestly acknowledged that my own participation in theoretical study had real "hard defects (硬伤)": first, the content was hollow—I fixated on higher-level documents and recited them by rote, never converting them into my own cognitive framework; second, the form was rigid—I simply sat and listened to lectures, with no genuine clash of ideas. Beyond that, my own motivation for study was not pure enough. Study was mostly about completing a task; I had a going-through-the-motions mentality and was not driven from the heart by a desire to study warfighting and build my capabilities.

Round after round of searching self-examination opened the curtain on reform of the headquarters night school (机关夜校).

The brigade Party committee took the lead in setting the example by establishing a new "three do-not-discuss (三不讲)" rule: do not discuss it if it is not connected to actual combat readiness; do not discuss it if there has been no personal reflection; do not discuss it if there has been no clash of views and debate. Every night school session must establish a "three-account ledger (三本账)": come in with real problems, conduct real clashing debate, and leave with real plans.

The spearhead of rectification struck first at "topic selection." Previously it was "study whatever the higher level tells you to study"; now it is "study whatever warfighting lacks." We brought the "chokepoint (卡脖子)" problems identified through after-action reviews of training exercises directly into the night school. Topics such as "How does political work penetrate hearts and minds during cross-region movement," "How is the psychological line of defense fortified in a complex electromagnetic environment," and "How can wartime mobilization be both brief and forceful" were without exception hard bones picked out from exercise summaries and after-action reports.

The change in work style directly produced a leap in the quality and effectiveness of study. During one study session discussing the topic "How do wartime political cadres respond rapidly," a brigade leader posed a challenge: "Of the response plans that political cadres are putting forward right now, how many have been derived through data-based deduction? Deciding by experience and intuition will not work on the battlefield."

Drawing on our study, we immediately consulted comrades in the operations and training section, researched psychological monitoring data on officers and soldiers collected during field training, and reached a conclusion: beginning at the fourth hour of high-intensity combat, the cognitive capacity of officers and soldiers declines markedly. At that point, political work should not involve lengthy reasoning; instead, it should help officers and soldiers stabilize their psychological line of defense. …

It was precisely through this kind of research and collision that the point of emphasis for political work was found. The "Battlefield Psychological Resilience Training Plan (战场心理韧性训练方案)" we subsequently developed on this basis was piloted during field training, after which the psychological stress-response time of officers and soldiers was measurably shortened.

Today, the propaganda section no longer shuts itself in to write lesson plans but goes deep into the training ground to collect information on ideological trends. Behind every data point in the security section's psychological services plan lies an analysis of the psychological expenditure associated with actual-combat training subjects.

Since the beginning of this year, the headquarters night school has expanded from an initial format focused exclusively on political cadres to encompass the military, support, and equipment domains as well. The more profound change lies in the fact that, at the level of thinking, everyone has made the shift from "being made to study" to "wanting to study," and from "studying to be seen" to "studying for war."

Every headquarters night school session still blazes with light. Every time I see the mind maps, lists of problems, and embryonic plans left on the conference room whiteboard after the debates, I feel a particular sense of fulfillment—theoretical study is no longer a slogan but has become combat effectiveness that can be seen and touched.

(Compiled by Tang Long and Zhu Haitao, special correspondent for the PLA Daily)

Original Chinese
带着“硝烟味”的理论学习 ■空军某旅政治工作部干事 董顺硕 盛夏深夜,空军某旅机关指挥帐篷内灯火通明,一场没有主持人、没有讲话稿的“头脑风暴”正激烈上演。白板上的主题格外醒目:政治工作如何嵌入联合火力打击链? “政治工作必须算时间账!每个节点的鼓动不能超过90秒,否则就会影响战斗节奏”“在人员高度分散、时空转换急剧、思想情绪紧张的环境下,战时政治工作必须见缝插针快速实施,需要很强的针对性和实效性”…… 思想的火花在碰撞中四溅,随着争论持续,白板上密密麻麻绘满了思维导图,一份“政治工作嵌入式作战方案”的雏形在深入讨论中渐趋明晰。 这种带着“硝烟味”的理论学习,让我很受触动。 此前有段时间,机关理论学习是另一番光景:各科室轮流念文件,领导强调意义、提出要求,台下划重点、抄笔记,到点散会。偶尔组织讨论,也常见“我先表个态”“深受启发”的空话套话,个别同志不愿真烧脑、真交锋。 问题出在哪?政治整训中,一位旅领导一针见血指出,理论武装不能光武装嘴巴,更要武装头脑、指导备战。脱离了实战要求的学习,只能是无用功!必须细化查纠备战打仗方面的政绩观偏差,将是否有利于提高战斗力作为衡量一切工作的硬杠杠。 讨论中,我把自己摆进去,进行了深刻反思,以前自己参加理论学习确实存在“硬伤”:一是内容空泛,盯着上级文件照本宣科,未能转化为自身的认知体系;二是形式僵化,只是单纯听讲课,缺乏真正的思想碰撞。此外,自己在学习动机上也不够纯正,学习多是为了完成任务,有应付心态,并非发自内心地想研究打仗、增强本领。 一场场深刻的自我剖析,拉开了机关夜校改革的序幕。 旅党委率先垂范立起“三不讲”新规:没联系备战实际不讲、没个人思考不讲、没交锋讨论不讲。每次夜校必须建立“三本账”:带着真问题来、进行真交锋、拿出真方案走。 整改的矛头首先冲向“选题”。以前是“上级让学什么就学什么”,现在是“打仗缺什么就学什么”。我们直接将训练演习复盘出的“卡脖子”问题搬进夜校。诸如“跨区机动中政治工作如何入心入脑”“复杂电磁环境下心理防线如何筑牢”“战时动员怎么既短又有力”等题目,无一不是从演习总结、复盘报告中筛出来的硬骨头。 作风的转变,直接催生了学习质效的跃升。一次学习讨论“战时政治干部如何快速响应”题目时,一位旅领导发问:“现在政治干部拿出的响应方案,有几个是经过数据推演的?靠经验拍板,战场上行不通。” 结合学习,我们立即向作训科战友请教,对驻训期间官兵心理监测数据进行研究,得出结论:高强度作战第4小时起,官兵认知能力明显下降。此时开展政治工作不宜讲过多道理,而是应该帮官兵稳住心理防线…… 就是在这样的研究碰撞中,政治工作的着力点找到了。后来,我们据此形成的“战场心理韧性训练方案”,在驻训试用后,官兵心理应激反应时间明显缩短。 如今,宣传科不再关起门来写教案,而是深入训练场收集思想动态;保卫科的心理服务方案,每一个数据的背后都对应着实战课目的心理消耗分析。 今年以来,机关夜校从最初的政治干部专场,扩展到了军事、保障、装备等各个领域。更深刻的改变在于,大家思想上实现了从“要我学”到“我要学”、从“学为看”到“学为战”的转变。 每次机关夜校学习,依旧灯火通明。每次看到会议室白板上那些争辩后留下的思维导图、问题清单、方案雏形,我心里就格外充实——理论学习不再是一句口号,而是变成了看得见、摸得着的战斗力。 (唐龙、解放军报特约记者朱海涛整理)