Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
My bottom line: if you believe that CvC is the military oracle, you will probably like the monograph. But the use of history is weak and slanted to begin with; I give it a C.
So overall Tom, you believe that our understanding of the Operational Level of War and our sense of it's relationship to strategy is largely sound and correct?

Why I like the monograph, - quibbles such as citing Fuller's Plan 1919 aside and quite a few other, - is it shows the largely weak foundations of what some think Operations actually are.

I'm currently reading Hamley's 1909 text on Operations (Hamley not mentioned or cited! Another quibble) and have wondered how on earth we went from there to here. - this monograph answers a lot of those questions.