And there I was thinking my explanation would end the discussion...sigh.
Quote:
Wilf Owen wrote: "The only evidence I want is to be shown why it is useful. What does it add. How is it better to have something between Strategy and Tactics, rather than worse."
At the risk of shamelessly tooting my own horn (and as an old-school WASP it makes me feel very uncomfortable even to consider that I am doing that...), I would ask why it is you do not think my explanation of the "operational level of warfare" did not provide the evidence you seek? (It was the post about which ML responded "Well said..." that has been quoted recently.) I am not a faithful accolyte of the subject or concept, but I did bother to learn it from the inside, as it was taught to military personnel in this country, and having done quite a bit of research and work in American logistics history, I did find something very useful in that level between the strategic and the tactical. Joint Operational Logistics in the contemporary American setting is a thing very different from the strategic and the tactical -- and, at the risk of sounding looney tunes, I found it fascinating to explore that space. Transplanting the operational (or, as I called it, "transitional") level of warfare concept to other areas of military affairs did not require me to make many blind leaps either. But, as I'm technically still a student (in a few months I shall become an insufferable PhD and expound from on high and expect unconditional acceptance...chuckle), I'm perfectly happy to examine the issue from another perspective and consider how it might not really work.
So, what is wrong with the explanation given? How is it unsatisfying? What is the critique? Seriously.
Cheers,
Jill