I do not think there is an "Operational Level." I think it's rubbish and have thought so for some time. - and especially since reading Naveh and Simpkin who were both professed to be experts in understanding and describing it.Originally Posted by Chris jM
What the Russians coined as the "Operational Level" was basically "Formation and Divisional Tactics."
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Theory and Practice
The operational level is something that may be worthwhile in theory, but not in practice. I think examining all the linkages between setting national ends/ways/means (strategy if you like) all the way down to low-level actions (tactical, if you must) is well worth a lifetime of study and thought. Its useful to have definitions and categories for this theory and useful to argue about how all this interacts. For my part, I don't see "operational" as a "level" inserted between the strategy and tactics, but rather a connecting file or "nervous system" between national actions of setting goals and apportioning resources, and lower level concepts to use/arrange those resources to achieve the goals. Maybe its not operational, but rather “lower strategy,” or even “higher tactical.” I'm not sure, but I know there are connections and understanding the connections is critical to creating something coherent and effective.
"In practice", senior officials and commanders should not deal in terms of the theory, but in terms of the reality facing them. The theory can provide clues on the connections and considerations they should take into account. However, what is really important is the mission they are given, the resources they have, the environment they are in, the other actors they have to coordinate with, etc. Putting the levels of war into doctrine has led to many of the problems addressed in the SSI document such as commands either acting or failing to act based on their self-defined (or doctrine-defined) placement in the levels of war hierarchy. In my mind, the U.S. Navy has proceeded furthest in this area, to their detriment, by creating a table that aligns levels of war with specific command levels (NWP 3-32 Maritime Operations at the Operational Level of War). However, as identified in the SSI pub, other commands have used “operational level” as either excuse or justification to plan and execute outside of what the reality of their situation would recommend.
Phil Ridderhof USMC
I tend to agree with Fuchs, above...
LINK.
I tend to agree with Wilf and PhilR, there is no such thing as an Operational level but it's not a major issue. If one just has to use the term for some reason, I believe Fuchs is correct. It was and is a Continental European construct and applicable to warfare there. It, as a term and concept, can be elsewhere employed but it is subject to dangerous misuse.
The Operational level of war applies to the Theater level and their employment of subordinate commands (be they Armies, Corps or Divisions) and it applies in only major conventional force on force combat (that does not preclude the use of SOF or irregular warfare as Operational assets or techniques). Operational level methodology entails maneuvering major formations in consonance with strategic aims in order to facilitate tactical success. Anything other than that is either Strategic or tactical.
Militarily, lacking a major conflict against a peer force, virtually all effort is going to be tactical as, in the West, we emphasize civilian control of the military. Strategy thus becomes the responsibility of the Government (hopefully, with military advice if the armed forces are to be employed) and the Forces are or should be responsible only for Operational and Tactical employment in the execution of that strategy.
One thing for sure, no Corporal or Platoon is going to be Operational or Strategic. That's a dumb and dangerous misnomer. Situation dependent, a Battalion might be a strategic force. More likely, a Brigade, Task Force, Division or Corps with a General Officer commanding can be but such a force is unlikely to need or even be able to employ Operational level methodology.
Error occurs when one attempts to apply Operational level concepts and methodology to inappropriate settings. To wit, the Coalition in Afghanistan. Afghanistan itself IS the operational level for this war. Strategy put us there, everything done there is tactical.
In most western COIN efforts, the nation involved is the de facto Operational level, it becomes the Theater as operations will generally be limited to that nation only and maneuver of large formations will not be necessary -- or even desirable. Strategy places forces in that nation, all that then transpires there is tactical. Tactical operations, as always, can have strategic effect. Similarly, Strategic decisions can have tactical effects. Rules of engagement developed politically for example. Or a decision to not deploy or use certain military assets, equipment or units. Conversely, a political decision that forces the use of certain elements can have an effect.
Operational decisions can have strategic and / or tactical effects. An effort to employ Operational level processes in an inappropriate setting can also have strategic and tactical effects and they will almost always be adverse. See Afghanistan...
Instead of calling it the Operational level, didn't we used to call them Campaigns? Or is that something else? Campaigning sounds more military, Operation sounds like you are going to the Hospital.
Yep. We did that until we got overinvolved with
Europe and all things European in the 80s...
Except that within campaigns you would have operations, like Operation Overlord or Operation Market.
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
...and those operations were really battles.
The term "Operation" has found a very wide meaning in the past 70 years. It used to be confined to military theory and physicians, but it's been applied much wider since then.
The Bundeswehr began to apply it to pretty much every planned combat action. I'm not sure when this began, but I know examples from '95 and I suspect that it's a post-Cold War thing.
Operations are performed by Doctors on the unsuspecting...
Operations can be the title or part thereof of an office, officer or other entity. Operation __(insert name here)___ can be whatever anyone wants it to be as Fuchs says. The Operational level of war is just that. operations (small 'o') are what units do...
operations (small 'o') are also performed by computer programs and subsets thereof...
To preclude confusion, I suggest re-titling 'The Operational level of war' to 'the Mediocre level of war' (based on the number of Corps Commanders relieved over the years...).
Which brings up a question. How can COIN be the 'graduate level of war' (which is fallacious, it's the middle school level of war -- chaos and hormones driving pettiness and all round immaturity to new new levels) with no Operational level per se? *
* GO make work employment ala Field Forces / XXIV Corps in Viet Nam and similar later examples do not count.
I don't think that COIN has no operational level. It's just not being used because people are too stubborn and not daring enough.
see PM
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks