Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
Now there are three levels, and it becomes much easier to explain a platoon leader why his behaviour needs to change in order to meet higher plans. You tell him about the operational level and how its demands can even look pointless or contradictory at his tactical level.
Example?
Wilf; remember how useful it looked to you a few years ago. That's a great part of the utility of the concept of an operational level. Thinking in three levels is easier than thinking in ten levels. You may think that you reached the point where you don't need this aide any more and are too irritated by the artificiality of the distinction, but that doesn't make it a poor idea.
a.) I thought it useful because I merely never questioned it. I just assumed it was. It was only when I started researching doctrine above the battle group level I began to find it answered none of the "So what" questions.
b.) Two levels is easier than than three. Again, I don't think this levels thing adds anything.
c.) I don't get irritated because I think I know more. I get irritated that there is an idea out there which no one seems to be able to explain to me in simple language and answer the questions I ask.
To whit,
The unique formation tactics are called operational art.
OK.
Why?
What tactics are unique to the formation level?
What is it about "Operational Art" that is not merely the planning and conduct of "Operations" and at every level of command?