Quote Originally Posted by BPowell View Post
that's a very good question, and I think highlights one of the issues confronting the military--we have a broad vocabulary that means almost nothing to other people. We sometimes confuse ourselves, as well!
LOL. It happens inside every profession, we do exactly the same thing to the never ending complaints of our students .

Quote Originally Posted by BPowell View Post
What I'm referring to is in conjunction with the three levels of war (strategic, operational, and tactical). For the purposes of the course I teach, strategic art refers to the art of strategy--looking at not only key strategic thinkers but at key documents such as the National Security Strategy, National Military Strategy, and the National Defense Strategy.
Okay, that's clear. Do you also include other elements such as trade patterns, demographic shifts, financial systems, etc.?

Quote Originally Posted by BPowell View Post
The idea behind it relates to the time-honored argument between the art of war vs. the science of war; we try to get our students thinking at the higher levels (e.g. the boring stuff--tactical is fun because you get to blow stuff up!)
So a Zen paradox approach? Clausewitz vs. Musashi and William the Silent vs. Sun Tzu? That could be a lot of fun. Are you using David Kilcullen's Countering Global Insurgency piece? He does a really nice job of setting the levels up as fractally decomposable. I'm assigning it as a text for my next class in theory and methodology.

Quote Originally Posted by BPowell View Post
How's that?
Excellent answer .

Marc