Quote Originally Posted by M.L. View Post
Fair enough. We'll throw Hammes and Cohen in the "99% that don't get it" bin.
99% maybe high, but no impossible
Incidentally, I don't disagree with the "Policy-Strategy-Tactics" triad per se. It is a useful idea; its just not the same thing as Ends-Ways-Means.
Tell me why. If it's a useful idea, why not use it.
I'm curious to know if you have ever served on a military staff above brigade? You see, I have, and in combat no less. I've also commanded and served on staff in combat at the tactical level, and I have served on staff at the strategic level (though not in combat).
Never done any time in any HQ above Brigade, and I've only ever done it in training.
Of the three, operational warfare is the most difficult to understand. Although there is doctrine and it is taught in the US officer education system, one really has to get out there and do it in order to appreciate it fully.
OK, so at which level of Command does "Operational Warfare" begin? What does it mean? Why is it not called "Divisional or Corps Tactics?"

To repeat myself, I used to be an "Operational Art" and Manoeuvre Warfare "Groupy." Spent a lot of time reading Glantz and studying Soviet Doctrine. I waffled on about "Deep Battle" and "Simultaneity" etc etc.

Then I started to write about it and thus have to really understand what I sought to discuss and guess what..... It turns out to be utterly empty. All definitions of the "Operational Level" turn out to utterly evidence free. Thus I ceased to be a believer. I looked behind the curtain, and there was nothing.

Then I found and read Hamely. So then went back and re-read all the classics and found they made no mention of it, at all!

I could choose to believe in an "Operational level" but I want evidence. Doctrine is not religion. ....and I live in Israel, where many in the IDF worship the "Operational Level," and where no one can really explain it either. To me, it's like Manoeuvre Warfare (and actually part of it). It evaporates under rigour.