The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)

[M.L.]

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.

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.

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.