Quote Originally Posted by M.L. View Post
You could make the case that the operational level of war does not exist. 90% of the strategic community would disagree with you, but you could make the case nevertheless.
You can make the case because those that pump the "operational level" cannot make a solid case. The idea of an "operational level of war" is severe impediment to clear thinking and action. It was invented by folks who didn't understand Strategy and Tactics.

What is a level of war? I submit it's meaningless. There is Policy, Strategy and Tactics. Operations is merely the planing and conduct the sustains tactics in a time and space.

That you can and must conduct operations, in no way makes the case of an "operational level." How do Divisional or Corps Tactics differ from "Operations?" The idea that Tactics "stops" at the Battle Group level is clearly absurd. Additionally, very small sub-unit actions get called "Operations."
This process of sequencing operations to achieve strategic effects is operational warfare.
So campaign planning and "operational level Warfare" is the same thing?
So, where do you land in North Africa? At what beaches or ports? What are your intermediate objectives to achieve the desired strategic effects?
Those are entirely tactical decisions. Planning is required. That plan and its conduct can be called an Operation. Its still tactics.

I've read just about all there is to read on the so-called "Operational level of war," from Hamley to Naveh, and most of the Soviet stuff. It's pseudo-academic, and does not conform to the Ends, Ways and Means.