Quote Originally Posted by M.L. View Post
Well said. I'd also add that operational warfare is tough because:

1. It links strategy to tactics, and therefore has elements of both. There is a temptation to lump it into one bucket or the other.

2. It is dynamic. What level of command plans at the operational level can change depending on the operation.

3. It isn't always there. A single aircraft performing an air strike to kill Saddam Hussein is a tactical action with a strategic effect. There is no need for operational planning (though one might argue that such a strike is part of an operational campaign).
OK, apologies that I missed this (HT to Infanteer)

1. Why is a link between strategy and tactics needed? The link is obvious and enduring. There is no link between Policy and Strategy.

2. So one day a level of command will not be working at the operational level and the next it will? Does this apply to all levels of command? If not, which ones does it apply to?

3. Broadly concur. To me an air strike to kill Saddam is a tactical action that supports the policy and is thus part of the strategy.

So essentially this link between Strategy and Tactics is dynamic both to the level of command and is sometimes is not required to link the two. So I would now ask, what purpose does it fulfil when it is present?