- This topic has 3 voices and 7 replies.
-
Posts
-
What is the difference between the Operational and Strategic level of the conduct of war? Give examples please.
Operation Iraqi Freedom-2006-present: the counterinsurgency is operational, the various tactics (guerilla warfare, psyop, intel gathering, etc) are strategic. If I understand your query correctly, I think Operational has to be implemented in order for the Strategic to work. The first example may be incorrect, it could be the Surge was Operational and the counterinsurgency is the Strategic. However, don't hold it against me if both examples are wrong, as I am not a military historian.
Since wars are fought for strategic purposes, the doctrine addresses the strategic context of the application of force. Since battle is translated into strategic objectives by operational art,
U.S. Army, Field Manual 100-5 Operations. June 1993. p. VSimply put Operations is the movement of army and corps sized formations, strategy is the setting of goals for the conduct of war. Operational is purely military and strategic is a combination of politics and military requirements.
Simply put Operations is the movement of army and corps sized formations,
So is putting 30,000 troops in an area operational?
strategy is the setting of goals for the conduct of war.
and then this is what they are going to be doing?From your answer, I'm guessing the second one I said was right. The surge is operational, the COIN is strategic?
I always considered tactical / strategic as the polars; tactical (your operational) as the movements and specific battles while strategic was in terms of the over all outcome… the flow (and sum if you will) of all the tactical machinations.
There are actually three levels of military operations: 1. Tactical, 2. Operational, and 3. Strategic.Tactical is essentially those operations that occur at brigade level and below or rougly the maneuvering of less than 5,000 men. It is tactical because it can only locally affect a battlespace. Tactical is even more commonly thought of as maneuvering a battalion/company/squad. Taking a hill, house, small town, or holding the extreme flank of a linear formation are all tactical operations. It is holding the Little Round Top.Operational are division-Corps sized operations. Holding Cemetery Hill at Gettysburg or taking the beaches at D-day.Strategic is deciding where to aim operations. Deciding to invade continental Europe or invading the North that led to Gettysburg were both strategic decisions.The three levels basically occupy a spectrum from smallest to largest on scale of operations. There is of course some overlap. A tactical victory can have operational or even strategic implications and vice-versa. An example of a strategic decision affectin tactics is the decision to not allow US forces to pursue into Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War. It was strategic but hamstrung tactical operations by allowing the enemy a self-imposed sanctuary.Yes, adding 30,000 troops is operational but it is also a strategic decision. More stategic than operational. Operational is the focus of their operations and tactical is how they do it.
Thank you for the clearification… never occured to me that this was the case. Another regret to add to my teaching career; it always bugs me when I find I taught the kids something that wasn't correct. Especially when I have no way of going back and getting the right info (and the mea culpa) to them.Nuts!
What would interrogation fall under?
Interrogation is none of the three. Interrogation feeds the commanders needs and helps him pick targets. It is part of preparing for the battle not the battle itself. Unless you mean battlefield interrogation, which is tactical. Battlefield interrogation is nothing more than taking an enemy prisoner and shaking him down on the spot for any immediately useful information such as enemy locations or nearby, IED's/ambushes. That is inherently tactical in nature.Wally, don't sweat it, there are plenty of military historians and pundits that don't get it. They have read too much Keegan, Hart or Fuller. There are even officers in US Army today that don't fully grasp the distinction between the three. I think this is largely because of the degree of overlap n the concepts. These are not rigid definitions but rather definitions of convenience. there are things that can be said fall squarely within one category but not another, but there also aspects that fit in two or even all three of the categories. The devil is in the details.
