Wilf,

Just because you conduct "Operations," it does not follow that there is something called an "Operational Level." What we are all talking about is reaping the benefits of success at the tactical level. That is not enabled by dreaming up something called the "Operational Level." - Sherman knew how to apply tactics to fulfil his contribution to the strategy - so he conducted an operation to make sure the tactical actions were relevant to that.
I don't really have a dog in this argument about levels of war, but to play the devil's advocate, could not the "operational level" be the coordination of various bureaucratic fighting organizations toward strategy fulfillment? In other words, "joint" and "coalition" operations may constitute an "operational level" of war - the coordination of different forces which use different equipment, tactics and doctrine all toward a common purpose?