I am not saying put the Operational Level back in the box. I am saying let's have a clear, simple and explicit understanding as to what it is, because at the moment current idea may be an obstacle to understanding. The understanding I am looking for is "what uses of force advances my strategy" (political aims)
Wilf,

A noble sentiment and fine for application inside the uniformed services. But that dog simply does not hunt--or at least trail effectively--beyond the edge of the military services. He stops at the interagency boundary. You know what I do as a POLAD--I offer political advice to my commander and his staff. To do that effectively, you at least have to understand what the unit does, what its mission entails, and how it is organized.

My predecessor was an administrative type with no field experence, let alone experience with the military. That did not matter if you see the POLAD as simply an errand boy for whatever crosses the embassy's collective mind. It matters terribly if you expect a POLAD to actually advise.

We can talk this until we are blue in the face. And we can come to a complete agreement. Our agreement simply has no effect in bridging that interagency gap. The result is the constant application of "muddle through" under which the temporarary, the expeditious, and the extemporary serve as the threads of US strategy. Put another way, we don't do strategic menus; we only do tailgate parties.

Tom