In the army, who can be considered a "chief"?
In the army, who can be considered a "chief"?This question sounds simple, but it's actually a controversial topic. Just recently, I heard something that shocked me and made me wonder what this was all about.
One day, I saw an article on the Internet entitled "Up to the "group of people" of the Military Commission, down to the company commander and instructor, can be called the chief". After reading it, I fell into deep thought. It turns out that there seem to be some misunderstandings in our understanding of the title of "chief".
At the beginning of the article, the title of "chief" in the army was mentioned, which made me a little stunned. Most people think of mid- and high-ranking officers, but in reality, even company commanders and instructors can be called chiefs. This shocked me a bit, because I always thought that the title was a privilege for those who were higher ranks.
I think of a specific incident in which the article mentions that the "group of people" of the Military Commission, including the chairman, vice-chairmen and members, are all called chiefs. This came as a bit of a surprise to me, after all, this is a member of the country's highest military leadership. However, the original text explained that within the army, it is not determined whether or not a leader can be called a chief according to his rank, but according to his position. This did surprise me a bit.
Next, the article mentions that company commanders and instructors can also be called chiefs, because according to the provisions of the army's internal affairs regulations, they are the military and political commanders of their units. This reminds me of the squadron leader and squadron commissar of the Armed Police Force, although the rank is captain, but in the squadron they are considered the chief. This example made me wonder if we have some stereotypes about the title of "chief".
Then, the article delves into the influence of barracks culture on the title of chief. In traditional cultures, only officers with the rank of colonel and above were called chiefs, while officers of other ranks, despite their equivalent ranks, were not entitled to this honorific title. This made me feel the uniqueness of the culture within the military, which is different from the leadership hierarchy in the general society.
It is clearly mentioned in the regulations of the army that only military and political chiefs can be called chiefs. However, in the barracks culture, officers at the rank of colonel and above are generally referred to as chiefs. This difference in culture and regulations makes us need to re-examine our perception of the title of chief. Is it that many times, we are swayed by the barracks culture and ignore the precise definition of military regulations?
I can't help but think of some discussions on the Internet, some people think that only high-ranking officers should be called chiefs, while others think that as long as they are the military and political chief of their unit, they can enjoy this honorific title. This sparked a debate about the rank of officers and the title of the chief. Some netizens said that this is just a military camp culture, not a military regulation, and we should be more objective and rational when discussing this topic.
Thinking deeper, I began to pay attention to the two-head system. Within our army, military units have two core leaders, the military chief and the political chief, who are responsible for military and political work. These two military and political chiefs are clearly designated as chiefs in military regulations. However, the barracks culture seems to have extended the term to a wider audience, giving lower-ranking officers the opportunity to be called chiefs as well.
Finally, the article summarizes the differences between military regulations and barracks culture, and emphasizes the broad understanding of the title chief. This made me reflect on my understanding of the inner workings of the military, and it also led me to think more deeply about the culture of the military. Perhaps, when we look at this issue, we need to consider factors both inside and outside the military more comprehensively in order to better understand this particular cultural phenomenon.
In the process, I came to understand the complex definition of the title of "chief" within the military. While the military sets clear standards, barracks culture plays an important role in it. This unique culture makes the title of chief no longer just a title of position, but also a kind of respect and recognition for leaders.
As we discuss this topic, perhaps we should be more open to different perspectives, not only in terms of military regulations, but also in understanding and respecting the impact of barracks culture on this issue. Through in-depth reflection and discussion, we may be able to better understand the workings within the military, as well as better respect and understanding this unique cultural phenomenon.