Oh, but don't forget: "Elite Republican guard" and "experienced from their wars with Iran". There was a whole series of talking points. Philwelch may be correct on the 3rd vs. 4th point, but I am pretty sure the talk was of them being the third/forth best. (Possibly the pundits think they could have beaten China in some hypothetical fight, since at the time neither could have really projected force at the other to speak of.)

I did say pundits, after all, and I'd add those making the analysis for political reasons. More sober analysts knew better, including the ones who actually planned operation, after all. The fact that they were grossly wrong because of their various motivations is sort of my point.