I learned the "operational level" of warfare via a simple explanation using logistics. It made the point very clear: At the strategic level, you have the goods being produced and shipped in their masses from the factories and the homeland to the theatre. At the tactical level (which can reach as high up as the "army" -- basically, the tactical level is the fighting force), you have units making use of these goods. How they exist at the strategic level is of no use to the tactical level, so the operational level is the point at which those large parcels of goods are taken apart and reassembled into new packages that make sense for utilization on the battlefield.

This logic can be applied in all military matters. The strategy which guides a war or military action is of no use to the operating units. It must be broken down into campaigns and operations and so forth, which can be put into action by those forces. So, for the Americans, the strategic level is DC, the operational level is the -COM (CENTCOM, PACCOM, etc.) and the tactical level are the guys in country.

I think the problem arises because "operational" has a variety of uses. Let's call it the "transitional" level of warfare. This sort of thinking may seem irrelevant for most, but without this separate level the US military, in all of this overlarge glory, does not work effectively.

What I find interesting about Owen's argument against the operational level of warfare is that England was the operational level of the Allied invasion of Western Europe. An essential strategy along with the means (masses of troops and goods) were funnelled into England over the course of years and prepared for deployment to and effective use upon the battlefield. This came in the form of developing the invasion and campaign plans, the training and organization of the troops and units, and the preparation of the supplies. It is simply unthinkable to conclude that something very different from either strategy or tactics did not occur during this process.

By the way, I highly recommend the Navy War College's JMO core course to give a good sense of the existence of this space in warfare. It kills the students, because it's very work intensive, but as a "tourist" I enjoyed it very much. of course, the students thought I was a bit looney for literally begging the powers that be to let me sit in - it was a quick and dirty way for me to accomplish some dissertation research -- besides, as a civilian it's a rarefied area you can't usually access, so to me it was all exciting. Anyway, I believe they put the syllabus online.

Jill