Page 42 of 47 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast
Results 821 to 840 of 934

Thread: The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)

  1. #821
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M.L. View Post
    Well said. I'd also add that operational warfare is tough because:

    1. It links strategy to tactics, and therefore has elements of both. There is a temptation to lump it into one bucket or the other.

    2. It is dynamic. What level of command plans at the operational level can change depending on the operation.

    3. It isn't always there. A single aircraft performing an air strike to kill Saddam Hussein is a tactical action with a strategic effect. There is no need for operational planning (though one might argue that such a strike is part of an operational campaign).
    OK, apologies that I missed this (HT to Infanteer)

    1. Why is a link between strategy and tactics needed? The link is obvious and enduring. There is no link between Policy and Strategy.

    2. So one day a level of command will not be working at the operational level and the next it will? Does this apply to all levels of command? If not, which ones does it apply to?

    3. Broadly concur. To me an air strike to kill Saddam is a tactical action that supports the policy and is thus part of the strategy.

    So essentially this link between Strategy and Tactics is dynamic both to the level of command and is sometimes is not required to link the two. So I would now ask, what purpose does it fulfil when it is present?
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  2. #822
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Your name is not William.
    I agree. My name is actually Jochim Kipod, the killer Hedgehog of Carpathia!


    Wilf, the operational level as such was created because people agreed on it.
    Yes, and folks thought the earth was flat, EBO was a good idea, and so was 4GW.
    The whole discussion comes to no end because you demand evidence for a clear black/white cut between military art & science.
    The only evidence I want is to be shown why it is useful. What does it add. How is it better to have something between Strategy and Tactics, rather than worse.
    To lead Operation Zitadelle is nothing like leading a fire team.
    OK, but that's Command. Commanding Operation Zitadelle was not the same as commanding Operation Anaconda. Operations are not the "Operational level of War." I know of one operation in Ulster that was just a total of 24 men.
    The exact separation is difficult because the meaning of designations such as brigade, division and corps varies over time and between countries. There are even differences between different conflicts that enable at times a division to play a role that had been played by an army group in an earlier conflict (division in Georgia 2008 ~ army group in France 1940).
    Yet Divisional Tactics are always definable as how a Division fights and operates.
    You want clarity of separation where clarity is neither required nor appropriate.
    I want clarity of expression to the degree I can understand it.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  3. #823
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    The inflationary mis-use of the word "operations" is no good argument.

    Most so-called operations should be called "action" or "plan". The so-called "Operation Anaconda" wouldn't have been more than a regimental order of the day in 1944.

  4. #824
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Your name is not William.

    Feel free to prove that my statement is false.
    It doesn't matter what others say or write, you need to prove it , really really prove it beyond doubt. Only my opinion on this counts, not anyone else's opinion.
    Prove it to ME.


    - - - - -
    Not true, you are making the accusation so the burden of proof is on YOU not Wilf. Unless you are legally insane in which case there is know proof. I am not being snarky either just the "Joe Friday Method" of analysis.

  5. #825
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I want clarity of expression to the degree I can understand it.
    This might help, although definitions may vary in other countries.

    The level of war at which campaigns and major operations are planned, conducted, and sustained to accomplish strategic objectives within theaters or other operational areas. Activities at this level link tactics and strategy by establishing operational objectives needed to accomplish the strategic objectives, sequencing events to achieve the operational objectives, initiating actions, and applying resources to bring about and sustain these events. These activities imply a broader dimension of time or space than do tactics; they ensure the logistic and administrative support of tactical forces, and provide the means by which tactical successes are exploited to achieve strategic objectives. See also strategic level of war; tactical level of war.
    Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005.


    Tactical level of war:
    (DOD) The level of war at which battles and engagements are planned and executed to accomplish military objectives assigned to tactical units or task forces. Activities at this level focus on the ordered arrangement and maneuver of combat elements in relation to each other and to the enemy to achieve combat objectives. See also operational level of war; strategic level of war.

    The accurate distinction (brigade , division = tactical level or not) depends on the conflict and the involved forces. The operational level can begin at brigade to theatre level and might reach up to the head of state (if that person gets involved).
    Last edited by Fuchs; 12-19-2010 at 04:54 PM.

  6. #826
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Not true, you are making the accusation so the burden of proof is on YOU not Wilf.
    That's my point. I detached and replayed his style of argumentation to show exactly that.

  7. #827
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    The inflationary mis-use of the word "operations" is no good argument.

    Most so-called operations should be called "action" or "plan". The so-called "Operation Anaconda" wouldn't have been more than a regimental order of the day in 1944.
    Sorry, but did not Op Anaconda use theatre level assets and aim at the capture of Bin Laden? Something central to US Policy. How is this inflationary use of the term "Operation."
    Your argument would be that not everything called or planned as an operation is in reality an "operation?"
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  8. #828
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    OEF-A was an operation (that was dragged on till it became something else).
    Anaconda was at most a small battle.

    Nobody claims that battle outcomes cannot be of direct interest to the strategic intent. An operation can culminate in a battle of decision, for example.




    Part of the problem in this discussion is that you're arguing about the absence of something, but you do so against a majority position.

    The people who believed that earth was flat were not providing evidence, the guy who challenged the majority opinion provided the evidence.

    It's on the other hand hard and at times impossible to prove absence of something.

    You dismiss the arguments for the presence of the subject in question, though.


    I think we should move the discussion into a more promising direction: You challenge the majority opinion and official opinion, thus you should provide evidence - of the existence of something.

    Prove that the use of the "operational level of war" idea is disadvantageous, hurting military thought. (And keep in mind that this is about net effects.)

  9. #829
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post

    The people who believed that earth was flat were not providing evidence, the guy who challenged the majority opinion provided the evidence.
    And what did the majority do? They threatened to kill him or put him in prison because it violated Doctrine

  10. #830
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Yeah, but won't do that to Wilf. Not yet.

  11. #831
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Perhaps the following will lend an appropriate level of dignity to this thread:

    DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
    Some of my little friends say there is no operational level.
    Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'
    Please tell me the truth; is there an operational level?

    VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
    115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET
    Yes, VIRGINIA, there is an operational level. It exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no operational level. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

    Not believe in the operational level! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
    Last edited by Pete; 12-19-2010 at 08:24 PM.

  12. #832
    Council Member Sargent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    178

    Default And there I was thinking my explanation would end the discussion...sigh.

    Wilf Owen wrote: "The only evidence I want is to be shown why it is useful. What does it add. How is it better to have something between Strategy and Tactics, rather than worse."
    At the risk of shamelessly tooting my own horn (and as an old-school WASP it makes me feel very uncomfortable even to consider that I am doing that...), I would ask why it is you do not think my explanation of the "operational level of warfare" did not provide the evidence you seek? (It was the post about which ML responded "Well said..." that has been quoted recently.) I am not a faithful accolyte of the subject or concept, but I did bother to learn it from the inside, as it was taught to military personnel in this country, and having done quite a bit of research and work in American logistics history, I did find something very useful in that level between the strategic and the tactical. Joint Operational Logistics in the contemporary American setting is a thing very different from the strategic and the tactical -- and, at the risk of sounding looney tunes, I found it fascinating to explore that space. Transplanting the operational (or, as I called it, "transitional") level of warfare concept to other areas of military affairs did not require me to make many blind leaps either. But, as I'm technically still a student (in a few months I shall become an insufferable PhD and expound from on high and expect unconditional acceptance...chuckle), I'm perfectly happy to examine the issue from another perspective and consider how it might not really work.

    So, what is wrong with the explanation given? How is it unsatisfying? What is the critique? Seriously.

    Cheers,
    Jill

  13. #833
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    133

    Default

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Tell me why. If it's a useful idea, why not use it.
    This concept illustrates the necessary connection between actions on the battlefield and policy objectives. Essentially, it is a richer statement of Clausewitz's axiom that "war is a continuation of policy by other means." In other words, war is an inherently political act. Therefore, everything which happens in war must serve political ends, right down to and including tactics.

    By contrast, ends, ways, and means, is not a framework for connecting low level actions (tactics) to terminal goals (policy). Rather, it is an analytical framework within policy, strategy, etc... which aids in the conceptualization, planning, and execution of related actions.

    In his book Modern Strategy Gray gives us his seventeen dimensions of strategy, which he groups into three categories. These align (roughly) with ends, ways, and means.

    The first group is "People and Politics", which are the ends (goals).
    The second is "Preparation for War", which are the means (resources).
    Finally, the third is "War Proper", which are the ways (methods).

    With respect to operational warfare and its relationship to strategy, Gray says the following in a 2009 monograph, SCHOOLS FOR STRATEGY: TEACHING STRATEGY FOR 21ST CENTURY CONFLICT

    A strategist is understood to be a professional military person charged either, or both, with: (1) guiding and shaping subordinate military operations by major units in campaigns for the purpose of securing military
    advantage (success or victory); and (2) guiding and shaping the course of military events for the purpose of achieving the polity’s political goals.

    In short, the subject of primary interest here is education for generals coping down the chain of command with the use of major military formations, and for generals striving to deliver upwards for the satisfaction of policy the military advantage achieved by the operational level of warfare. I am aware of the historical fact that in different times, places, and circumstances, the relations among politics, strategy, and tactics can assume widely different forms. Nonetheless, the two core behaviors just identified as our prime foci, truly are ubiquitous in kind. All belligerents have to strive for purposeful coherence in the activities by the elements that contribute to their military instrument; and all belligerents, similarly, must seek to employ that instrument in such ways that their political ambitions are advanced.
    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    OK, so at which level of Command does "Operational Warfare" begin? What does it mean? Why is it not called "Divisional or Corps Tactics?"
    As I posted previously, this can vary depending on the context. In the US system, the operational level is really the domain of the Corps. Only a Corps is manned to execute the inherently joint functions of a truly operational headquarters. However, there is no hard and fast rule. As Gray states above, the relationships are dynamic.

    In response to the second question above, planning Corps operations (and to some extent, Division) are not like planning, say, a company operation, only on a larger scale. To call something "Corps Tactics" would be to suggest as much, and therefore be misleading.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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!
    The word "strategy" appears exactly once in The History of the Peloponnesian War. Yet, this is one of the most influential books on strategy ever written, and is required reading in most strategic studies programs. Similarly, the absence of the words "operational warfare" from history doesn't really tell us that much. As I have said before, it is better to focus on ideas rather than words.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I could choose to believe in an "Operational level" but I want evidence. Doctrine is not religion.
    I'm not sure exactly what you want as evidence. Do you mean evidence aside from the overwhelming majority of military thinkers? You reject that as "99% of thinkers are wrong." Or perhaps historical case studies? You reject that as misinterpretation. Or do you want doctrine? You reject that as "not religion."

    If operational warfare is the link between strategy and tactics, the perhaps the best evidence is your own words:

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    A campaign/operation merely ensures that tactics take place in the time and place relevant to the strategy.
    I've rarely seen a better definition of operational warfare...
    Last edited by M.L.; 12-20-2010 at 03:56 AM.
    There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
    -Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
    http://irondice.wordpress.com/

  14. #834
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    A campaign/operation merely ensures that tactics take place in the time and place relevant to the strategy.
    Quote Originally Posted by M.L. View Post
    I've rarely seen a better definition of operational warfare...
    OK, but
    a.) That's a planning function.
    b.) It could take place at all levels of command.
    c.) It doesn't interpose itself between Strategy and tactics. It's exactly what the British Army did for 200 years before suddenly adopting the "operational level."
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  15. #835
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post

    Colin S. Gray (and many others) calls Policy, Strategy and Tactics, "The Strategy Triad."
    That’s news to me (and him too more than likely, unless he’s one of those types who is unself-conscious about what he says and rather more concerned with the volume of his work....you’d think I disliked him from that comment) The following quotes are from Colin S. Gray, War, Peace and International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History.....

    ... it is essential to be clear as to the meanings of, and distinctions among, three key terms: tactics, operations and strategy.

    Tactics, operations and strategy

    Tactics refers to the actual use of armed forces, primarily, though not exclusively, in combat. In essence, tactics are about how to fight, about military behaviour itself.

    Operations refers to the use made of tactics for the conduct of a military campaign.

    Operational art is the skill with which forces are manoeuvred so that they are well positioned for tactical advantage. But it refers also to the ability to know when to accept or decline combat, with a view to advancing campaign wide goals. Operational art uses the threat and the actuality of battle to win a campaign.

    Strategy refers to the use made of operations for their impact upon the course and outcome of a war. Strategy [ways] is the bridge between military power [means] and policy [ends]. (p. 40)

    (All emphasis and additions in parentheses are mine)

    Gray is one of those who uses the term “operational” inconsistently throughout the book but who also believes that Napoleon invented the operational level, or, perhaps more strictly speaking practiced it but may not have known about it (which basically means Gray’s taking modern concepts and applying them to people and places who would not have known about them and thus couldn’t possibly be doing such things- the empiricism of Elton or Acton rather than the verstehende/hermeneutic Collingwood-ian one)...

    Napoleon’s military genius did not lie in any unique understanding of warfare and how to succeed at it. He did not know things about war that were mysteries to other professionals. Rather, his genius lay in the ability actually to do what the general wisdom recognized should be done. Recall that strategy – or, in Napoleon’s case, largely operations [?!]– is an eminently practical undertaking. He had an outstanding coup d’oeil on the battlefield. He was a brilliant practitioner, by any historical standard, of operational manoeuvre for battle. (p. 44)
    Personally, I was taught that Napoleon was a master grand tactician (the term and concept then in practical use). He could not have been operationally, or for that matter strategically, capable because his wars never brought about a more favourable peace nor did they secure his long term goals of French continental hegemony and thus, he couldn’t have understood strategy either given the numerous opportunities he had for forming favourable alliances. Of course operational art as a self-consciously practised and taught concept didn’t exist either so he wouldn’t have understood what we are arguing about over strategy and operational art (given they would have understood those terms differently, if at all). Obviously, in today’s terminology, Napoleon didn’t harmonise his ends (policy) with his ways (strategy) which meant he merely frittered away his means (making his eventual defeat all the more likely) though in his age, suffused as it still was with notions of glory and honour that really didn’t matter (realpolitik and came later).

    In the age of Napoleon the term “Strategy” actually encompassed what we now largely subsume under “theatre strategy” and “operations” with “grand tactics” bridging that and “minor tactics” (the clue’s in the name!). If we want to know what Napoleon intended at Jena (for instance) than we must think like him, with knowledge then available to him, not in terms and concepts he would not have comprehended and would not have acted upon. In his day “grand strategy” (a term we still use) covered things like “national military strategy”/ “foreign policy” (&c) that Clausewitz subsumed under the simpler (and “theoretically” parsimonious sounding) term politik (and he, too, was innovating by trying to come up with a theory of warfare using existing terms to convey new meanings).

    Do I believe that there is an operational level of war? I believe that we (some of us at any rate) believe that there is and thus we act on that belief thereby making it a self-fulfilling prophecy just as people did when they thought there were such things as river faeries and thunder cracks were proof of the existence of Thor and thereby acted accordingly (whether or not there is an existential, un-changing, “real” entity that equates to what we describe as “operational” level warfare...who knows? I’m just a poor, ugly, semi-literate man on a tiny blue planet in a very large universe...I’ll leave that for my betters to thrash out).

    Anyway, I’m done for this year.

    It’s Christmas and much as I enjoy these “virtual” debates ---I really couldn’t care less who’s right or wrong on the internet and I really don’t have an axe to grind or a name/reputation to make/maintain for myself--- there’s mulled wine to be drunk, presents to be opened, children to be played with, single women to be flirted with, family fences to be (temporarily) mended, a Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy marathon to be watched and all kinds of meat and poultry to be enjoyed. Let’s spare a thought too, over Christmas, for all those brave men and women who will be celebrating (if they have that luxury) in less friendly climes, yet, without whom, the peace we enjoy on the home front would be impossible.

    Happy Christmas everyone!

    (As a gift allow me to leave you all this chipper variant on my favourite carol Good King Wenceslas by the Irish Rovers)

  16. #836
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    Gray is one of those who uses the term “operational” inconsistently throughout the book but who also believes that Napoleon invented the operational level, or, perhaps more strictly speaking practiced it but may not have known about it ...
    I know Colin Gray pretty well. I owe him a huge debt as concerns his teaching and ideas. He literally "freed my mind," with a lot of writing.
    His latest book uses the "Triad," but makes mention of the "operational level" issues. He is very aware of my thoughts on the matter, but he is Colin Gray and I am Wilf Owen.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  17. #837
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    A campaign/operation merely ensures that tactics take place in the time and place relevant to the strategy.


    OK, but
    a.) That's a planning function.
    For sure. The question is, does it require a unique skill set? Is planning at the operational level fundamentally different from strategy/tactics? I would say yes, and most military thinkers agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    b.) It could take place at all levels of command.
    Careful with semantics. Lets not confuse the term "operations" used in its broad sense with "operational warfare." Yes, a company commander can plan an operation, however, that does not equate to operational warfare. Operational warfare, in contrast with operations, only takes place in major formations, namely Corps and above, and possibly Division if properly augmented.

    I'll grant you it is poorly named, which contributes to the confusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    c.) It doesn't interpose itself between Strategy and tactics. It's exactly what the British Army did for 200 years before suddenly adopting the "operational level."
    Again, you are confusing what they did with what they called it. I may be misreading your above statement, but you seem to be saying that the British did operational-level planning for 200 years without labeling it as such.

    It is one argument to say that a unique realm exists in which military professionals link strategy to tactics, but it isn't a "level of war." It is another to say that no unique realm exists. You seem to be arguing the former here, in which case the issue is one of semantics. In other posts, you seem to argue the latter, in which case this issue is one of existence.

    In any case, simply because no one wrote down the words "operational warfare" doesn't mean it didn't exist, or that no one was doing it.
    There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
    -Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
    http://irondice.wordpress.com/

  18. #838
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M.L. View Post
    F Yes, a company commander can plan an operation, however, that does not equate to operational warfare. Operational warfare, in contrast with operations, only takes place in major formations, namely Corps and above, and possibly Division if properly augmented.
    OK, so what you are telling me is that Operational Warfare is something that takes place at the Corps level (and above) and is thus done by Corps Staff, but is also done by Divisions if they have Corps assets?

    So basically, Operational Level Warfare is how Corps fight?

    If so, when does a Corps employ "Operational Level Warfare" and when does it not?

    Again, you are confusing what they did with what they called it. I may be misreading your above statement, but you seem to be saying that the British did operational-level planning for 200 years without labeling it as such.
    Let me be clear. They conducted and taught soldiers to plan and conduct "Operations." Basically staff work. They called this "Operations of War." It was largely focussed on Campaign planning. They did not make it something between Strategy and Tactics. Quite the opposite.
    This is the model and teaching I subscribe to.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  19. #839
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M.L. View Post
    Careful with semantics. Lets not confuse the term "operations" used in its broad sense with "operational warfare." Yes, a company commander can plan an operation, however, that does not equate to operational warfare. Operational warfare, in contrast with operations, only takes place in major formations, namely Corps and above, and possibly Division if properly augmented.

    I'll grant you it is poorly named, which contributes to the confusion.
    That is what I was looking for, if I understand it correctly. Operations planning is concerned with Combat but Operational Warfare has two sides so to speak. On one side is the Combat Operation and the other side for lack of a better term I will call Logistics Operation usually on a very large scale. The Logistics side tends to link up to Strategy while the Operation side tends to link down toward the actual Battle. Which is why they call it the bridge between Strategy and Tactics.

    Is that about right? Yes,No, I missed the whole thing?

  20. #840
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    OK, so what you are telling me is that Operational Warfare is something that takes place at the Corps level (and above) and is thus done by Corps Staff, but is also done by Divisions if they have Corps assets?
    Operational planning is inherently joint in nature. In the US system, the Corps staff is properly manned to synchronize and integrate joint capabilities in support of land campaigns. Divisions are not, and would need to be augmented with additional personnel and capabilities to fight at the operational level.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    So basically, Operational Level Warfare is how Corps fight?

    If so, when does a Corps employ "Operational Level Warfare" and when does it not?
    I wouldn't say that. "How" implies a prescriptive approach, which is more like tactics. In this sense, operational planning is closer to strategy, which is descriptive in nature, though more narrow in scope. Nor would I necessarily limit operational warfare to the Corps. It may be executed by a joint task force, of which a Corps may be the land forces component. It may also be executed by the combatant command, though generally the combatant command is concerned with strategy. Again, "who" does it and "when" are largely dependent on the context.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Let me be clear. They conducted and taught soldiers to plan and conduct "Operations." Basically staff work. They called this "Operations of War." It was largely focussed on Campaign planning. They did not make it something between Strategy and Tactics. Quite the opposite.
    This is the model and teaching I subscribe to.
    Fair enough. The question, then, is this: Was "Operations of War" and campaign planning fundamentally different from both tactics and strategy, while linking the two? If not, what is "Campaign Planning", and is it tactics or strategy?
    There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
    -Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
    http://irondice.wordpress.com/

Similar Threads

  1. Assessing Al-Qaeda (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 286
    Last Post: 08-04-2019, 09:54 AM
  2. OSINT: "Brown Moses" & Bellingcat (merged thread)
    By davidbfpo in forum Intelligence
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 06-29-2019, 09:11 AM
  3. The David Kilcullen Collection (merged thread)
    By Fabius Maximus in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 451
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 03:23 PM
  4. The Warden Collection (merged thread)
    By slapout9 in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 317
    Last Post: 09-30-2015, 05:56 PM
  5. Gaza, Israel & Rockets (merged thread)
    By AdamG in forum Middle East
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 08-29-2014, 03:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •