I think you just reinforced my point...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
M.L.
For the most part, yes. Campaign planning occurs at the operational level of war, although the operational war is not limited to campaign planning.
""...that its techniques and principles are often misapplied...We as an an Army have a tendency to use precepts and principles when they are not appropriate simply because they are taught, ergo they must be used...""
Quote:
Activities at this level link tactics and strategy by establishing operational objectives needed to accomplish the strategic objectives, sequencing events to achieve the operational objectives, initiating actions, and applying resources to bring about and sustain these events. These activities imply a broader dimension of time or space than do tactics; they ensure the logistic and administrative support of tactical forces, and provide the means by which tactical successes are exploited to achieve strategic objectives." (emphasis added / kw)
The first item in bold print is an invitation to the Type A go-getters of the US Army to go 'Operational' as that clause implies they are doing something more grand than the humdrum (and 'low level' thus simply using the 'Operational level' concept elevates one above the hoi polloi...) application of decent tactics to obtain goals. The second leads some to believe that if they merely label what they do as being at the Operational level, they are in fact doing great things. -- I cite Norm Schwarzkopf as an example with his contention that the Desert Storm tactical ploy (not his idea, BTW) was an "Operational level maneuver."
The Operational level aspects of Desert Storm were the placing of forces including Third US Army, VII Corps and XVIII Airborne Corps (+) in theater -- after that it was all tactical. Similarly, placing US Forces in Afghanistan was an Operational level move that made all of Afghanistan and what transpires there 'Operational level.' Everything downstream is tactical -- but I'll bet big bucks a lot of RC / BCT and even Bn Staff time in country is spent on 'Operational level planning...' and merging LOO (a must use term as it has been favored by the current Vice Chief... :rolleyes: ).
We embraced the Operational Level of war as a result of its use in European Armies as a descriptor of the tactical deployment and support evolutions of echelons above Corps. That was done in the late 70s and 80s as we were then almost totally focused (wrongly...) on Europe and loved all things European. There is great applicability of the level in Joint Operations and the Army as a participant in those needs to understand the principles but the applicability to Army units in Theater is far less clear. The term was not in general use in the US Army prior to the 1980s and we went to North Africa -- and a lot of other places in several Theaters -- during WW II without using it. ;)
Further, as Bob's World's quoted comment of Collins emphasizes the operational ART consists of "Military plans and operations that implement military strategies at theater level. Campaigns predominate if armed combat occurs." Thus if one accepts that and most do, then whether there is an Operational Level of War becomes a semantic food fight (in which we are all merrily engaging... :D ) and is perhaps intriguing but little more. I'd also note that it is an art, not a science...
What is important is the potential misuse -- and waste of staff time -- of Operational level planning efforts on what are tactical evolutions. Far more pernicious is that unwarranted elevation inadvertently (or deliberately in some cases) encouraging Staff and Commander to interfere with tactical evolutions by subordinate Commanders in the guise of 'engineering success' and insuring 'all the LOOs are followed...' while operating under the delusion that they are a high level planning operation using military science to control the destiny of nations by directing the Plebs to perform the proper tactical evolutions to attain strategic goals...
My Mother told me to be careful what I wanted, I might get it. Long experience tells me the US Army needs to follow that precept and be careful what they promulgate as doctrine -- because they almost certainly will get it. If it's provided it will almost certainly be used -- even if it's ill advised and sadly or even dangerously misapplied, misplaced or misused. :eek: