Quote Originally Posted by M.L. View Post
This is clever indeed. What Mr. Owen is trying to do here is make his point by demeaning the opposition.
To demean the opposition would be a breach of good form. To argue against bad ideas is a requirement.
You see according to Mr. Owen, if you think there is an operational level of war, then it just isn't that you have a bad idea...no, its much worse: You are too stupid to "comprehend the basics."
The point merely being, IF you understand the relationship between strategy and tactics, why put operations in there.
I reject the operational level of war, because I see no need for it. It adds nothing. I also think having "levels of war" is not useful.

If you ask me, that is pretty bold for someone who not only contradicted himself in his own post, but also challenged anyone who saw ends/ways/means as goals/methods/resources to publish it in Infinity Journal, only to find out that the FIRST ARTICLE in the FIRST ISSUE of that journal contained EXACTLY THAT!
That article was written by T.X.Hammes. Not me.

T.X. know each other and we argue a lot. First time we met, I called him on 4GW. I think we've been pretty friendly ever since! I allow writers to write what they want, even when I think they are completely wrong. Get the debate out there. As long as they are talking about strategy, it's all good. I don't aim to suppress debate. I want debate, and I want evidence.