Introduction
The operational level of War is an important aspect of military strategy, which represents the differences between high-level strategic planning and tactical execution of military operations. It is at the level that commanders engage in the orchestration of large-scale operations and campaigns where the various military assets are integrated to achieve strategic objectives. The following essay aims to understand the need for an operational level in modern warfare and the rationale behind its existence (Schulze 2020, 185). Therefore, to understand the topic for exploration, it is important to define the operational level of War.
The operational level of warfare is the level that focuses on planning campaigns with the aim of achieving strategic objectives. General activities involve the coordination and synchronization of military forces, assets, and resources across theaters of operation, with the aim of translating strategic goals into actionable plans. It is important to understand that the operational level is different from the strategic level, which is meant for long-term planning and formulation of policies (Benguria et al. 2022, 137). Additionally, it is different from a tactical level, which deals with immediate combat action, since the operational level occupies the middle ground where detailed planning and execution meet to determine the course of the specific military operation.
Throughout history, the operational level has played a pivotal role in shaping the outcomes of campaigns and War. For instance, the 1918 offensives on the Western Front during World War I, where coordinated Allied attacks, shattered German defenses and sped the conclusion of the War (Paterson et al. 2020, 450). Moreover, in 1944, Operation Overlord displayed the effectiveness of operational planning in orchestrating large-scale amphibious landings and achieving a decisive victory in Europe. Such wonderful historical examples show the importance of the operational level in translating strategic imperatives into visible military actions in real time.
Understanding the operational level ofthe War exists between strategic planning and tactical execution; it is a complex framework for managing military campaigns to achieve their objectives. The main focus of the level is planning and is made of a range of critical components that shape function and definition. Going back in history, the origin of the operational level is traced back to the Napoleonic era, when Napoleon Bonaparte, as a strategic genius, emphasized the importance of operational maneuver and decisive battles (Millett, 2021). However, the formalization of the concept of the operational level was theorized and adopted on a large scale in the 19th and 20th centuries. Scholars such as Alfred Thayer Mahan and Carl von Clausewitz laid the groundwork for understanding the operational art, emphasizing the need for intermediate-level planning and the integration of military forces across theaters of operation.
In response to changes in doctrine, technology, and the nature of warfare, the operational level has drastically evolved. A good example is the mechanization of warfare in the early 20th century, which led to different approaches in operational planning and logistics. Moreover, the rise of air power and the concept of strategic bombing during World War II introduced novel challenges and opportunities for operational commanders to exploit (Jensen 2021, 529). It is important to understand that the key components of the operational level include flexibility, decision-making, and coordination. Therefore, coordination entails the integration of the various military assets, resources, and forces to achieve the shared objectives. Activities such as synchronizing movements, intelligence, and logistics across the operation paradigm mark coordination. For example, in Operation Overlord (Normandy) in 1944, Allied commanders coordinated a complex amphibious assault involving land, sea, and air forces to establish a foothold in Nazi-occupied France and ultimately liberate Western Europe.
Moreover, flexibility is a crucial factor at the operational level, enabling commanders to adapt their plans and strategies in response to dynamic battlefield conditions. The 1918 offensives on the Western Front during World War I exemplify the principle, as Allied commanders adjusted their tactics and strategies in the face of stiff German resistance. Using the newest technologies at the time, such as tanks and aircraft, decisive victories were achieved by breaking through enemy lines (Onuoha 2020, 91). Finally, decision-making is the key at the operational level, with commanders tasked with making critical choices regarding resource allocation, the prioritization of objectives, and risk management. In the context of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for instance, military leaders faced difficult decisions regarding the timing and scale of the operation, as well as the post-conflict stabilization efforts. It is important to understand that the success or failure of the decision had serious implications for the outcomes of the campaign and greater influence in geopolitics.
Reasons for the existence of Operational-level
The operational level of War exists primarily to facilitate the coordination and integration of military forces across various theaters of operation, enabling commanders to achieve strategic objectives efficiently and effectively. Firstly, it is the necessity of coordinating disparate elements of military power to achieve unified strategic goals. During World War I in 1918, campaigns on the Western Front faced a stalemate on Western Front, allied commanders prepared and launched coordinated offensives to the German defenses, and important victories were achieved (Shovlin 2021). These offensives, such as the Hundred Days Offensive, involved the careful orchestration of infantry, artillery, and airpower to overwhelm German positions and force a retreat. Allied commanders synchronized their efforts across various countries, once leading to the collapse of the German army at the end of the War.
Additionally, the operational level of War is for flexibility and adaptability in response to the dynamic nature of the battlefield and unforeseen challenges. The Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944 by Operation Overlord is a good example of flexibility in real action. Considering adverse weather conditions and strong German defenses, the Allied commanders adjusted the plans to guarantee the success of the invasion (Kretchik, 2023). For instance, the case of initial airborne landings being scattered and disorganized received a quick adoption by redirection and reinforcements to ensure that the objectives were achieved either way. The quick flexibility and adaptability lead to the successful establishment of a beachhead in Normandy and the liberation of Western Europe from Nazi occupation.
The existence of an operational level of War is essential for coordinating and integrating military forces to achieve strategic objectives. Through examples such as the 1918 Campaigns on the Western Front and Operation Overlord, it is evident how operational-level planning and execution enable commanders to synchronize their efforts across multiple fronts and adapt to changing battlefield conditions (Bordo and Mickey 2021, 60). The absence of an operational level would lead to a lack of strategic direction that is necessary to achieve decisive victories on the battlefield. The operational level is a critical component of modern warfare, ensuring the success of military campaigns and the attainment of strategic goals.
The operational level of War facilitates theater-level planning and execution, allowing military commanders to manage complex campaigns across vast geographical areas. Striking illustration can be found in Pacific Theater during World War II, particularly in the pivotal years of 1942 and 1943. Moreover, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. found itself engaged in a sprawling theater of operations stretching across the Pacific Ocean, encompassing diverse environments. At this point of operational-level planning, Allied commanders developed a series of island-hopping campaigns aimed at advancing steadily toward the Japanese home islands while bypassing heavily fortified enemy positions in the War. Such an approach expected a careful coordination of naval, air, and ground forces, as well as logistical support to sustain operations over vast distances. While working at the operational level, allied commanders managed to synchronize their efforts across multiple fronts, effectively prosecuting campaigns and ultimately defeating Japan, which was the main threat.
Finally, the operational level of War plays an important role in risk management and decision-making, ensuring that military leaders make informed choices regarding the allocation of resources and mitigation of risks. For instance, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is a good example of effective decision-making at the operational level. There were various dilemmas regarding the timing, scale, and execution of the operation, as well as the post-conflict stabilization efforts, which needed critical decision-making. Despite initial success in overthrowing the Iraqi regime, inadequate planning for post-conflict stabilization led to prolonged insurgency and instability in the region, highlighting the consequences of flawed operational planning. It highlighted the importance of operational planning, which will help to anticipate the potential challenges, reduce the risk of mission failure, and minimize the material and human cost of War.
Should an Operational level exist?
Answering the question of whether or not the operational level of War should exist requires a critical examination to understand the benefits and potential drawbacks. The first stage in the context is to focus on the arguments that support the existence of the operational level. The reason that the operational level should exist is that it facilitates coordination and centralized planning, which is effective in deploying military forces. The operational level enables commanders to synchronize their efforts and manage to achieve common goals. Centralized planning ensures that resources are allocated efficiently and that military actions are cohesive and complementary, ultimately maximizing the effectiveness of military operations. In 1991, Ope, ration Desert Storm centralized the operational planning, which made the coalition forces coordinate ground operations, which led to rapid and decisive victories against the Iraqi military.
Additionally, supporters contend that the operational level enables flexibility and adaptation to changing circumstances on the battlefield. Generally, military operations are ever-dynamic, and there are many unpredictable challenges and contingency plans that arise during the campaign. Working at the operational level, commanders have the flexibility to adjust their plans and tactics in response to evolving threats and opportunities (Johnstone and Caitriona 2020, 69). Adaptability allows military forces to maintain the initiative and exploit enemy weaknesses, increasing the likelihood of success. For instance, during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, U.S. Special Operations Forces demonstrated remarkable adaptability by rapidly adjusting their tactics and strategies.
On the other hand, it is important to avoid the disadvantages of the operational level in War. The main argument against the existence of an operational level is redundancy and overlapping responsibilities (Schulze 2020, 185). Since the operational level exists between the tactical and strategic levels, it may duplicate functions that have already been performed, which will lead to inefficiencies and confusion in decision-making. In complex military organizations, such as those found in multinational coalitions, the delineation of responsibilities between strategic, operational, and tactical levels can become blurred, resulting in duplicated efforts and wasted resources. Redundancy of the operational level may hinder quick response to emerging threats and changing circumstances on the battlefield, affecting success.
Another area for improvement is the complexity of the operational level in terms of implementation. The operational level often involves the establishment of hierarchical command structures, complex planning processes, and extensive coordination mechanisms, which can slow down decision-making and impede the agility of military forces (Burke et al., 202Large-scale scale operations during major conflicts or humanitarian intervention may experience delays and miscommunications. The bureaucratic overhead created may divert resources and attention away from more pressing operational priorities, ultimately undermining the effectiveness of military campaigns. During the early stages of the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan in 2001, competing priorities within the operational command structure hindered the timely deployment of critical resources and assets.
To answer the question of whether an operational level should exist, there is a need to understand the criticism and address the concerns of the opposing point. Well, the issue of overlapping responsibilities between the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of command, it is important to understand that each level serves distinct functions that are essential for effective military planning and execution (Shovlin 2021). For instance, strategic decision-makers are in charge of long-term planning and policy formulation; the tactical level is in charge of immediate combat actions. Therefore, the operational level translates the objectives of the military in an operation into a practical plan and coordinating the military operation. Hence, instead of being redundant, it complements the action of tactical and strategic levels of command, ensuring coherence and alignment between strategic goals and tactical actions on the battlefield.
Moreover, supporters contend that while the operational level may introduce complexity and bureaucracy into military planning and execution, these challenges can be mitigated through effective organizational structures, streamlined processes, and robust communication networks. A well-functioning operational command structure is thought to hinder agility and responsiveness by critiques, but in a real sense, it enhances the ability of military forces to adapt to changing battlefield conditions and seize opportunities (Onuoha, 2023). Leveraging modern technologies and best practices in organizational management, military organizations can minimize bureaucratic overhead and maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of operational planning and execution. For instance, the adoption of agile methodologies and decentralized decision-making processes enables military commanders to rapidly adjust their plans and tactics in response to emerging threats or opportunities without sacrificing coordination.
Consider the benefits of operation, including coordination, centralized planning, flexibility, quality, and adaptability, which outweigh redundancy, bureaucracy, and complexity. It is important to note that complex military operations, such as those for multinational coalitions, indeed require effective coordination and synchronization of military forces. At the operational level, military commanders can ensure unity of effort and maximize the effectiveness of military operations, ultimately enhancing the likelihood of success.
Therefore, the operational level military is an important component of modern warfare, providing the strategic direction needed to achieve important victories on the battlefield. The operational level of War stands as a linchpin in military strategy, providing the necessary framework for translating strategic objectives into actionable plans on the battlefield (Jensen 2021, 532). The existence of an operational level is vital for orchestrating large-scale campaigns, coordinating military forces, and adapting to the dynamic nature of modern warfare. At its core, the operational level enables commanders to synchronize their efforts across multiple theaters of operation, ensuring unity of effort and maximizing the effectiveness of military operations in any given context.
The key reason lies in the ability to facilitate coordination and centralized planning. Military commanders manage to integrate various assets and resources, set priority objectives, and allocate resources efficiently. Centralized planning ensures that military actions are coherent and complementary, ultimately enhancing the likelihood of success in the battleground.
Moreover, the operational level enables flexibility and adaptability in responding to changing battlefield conditions and emerging threats from enemies. In the current complex and dynamic security environment, military operations often require rapid adjustments and innovative strategies (Millett, 2021). At the operational level, commanders have the flexibility to adjust their plans and tactics, seize opportunities, and mitigate risks. Therefore, the operational level plays a crucial role in ensuring the success of military campaigns and the attainment of strategic objectives.
Conclusion
The operation level of War forms a critical component of military planning and execution, which facilitates coordination, centralized planning, flexibility, and adaptability in achieving the goals of War. Despite issues with complexity, redundancy, and bureaucracy, the operational level serves distinct functions that are crucial for a successful military. The operational level translates strategic objectives into actionable plans, coordinating the employment of military forces across theaters of opera; the operational level ensures coherence and alignment between strategic goals and tactical actions on the battleground. Moreover, while the operational level may introduce challenges in terms of complexity and bureaucracy, these can be mitigated through effective organizational structures and streamlined processes.
It is important to understand that the operational level remains useful in modern warfare by providing strategic direction and coordination that is much needed for victories on the battlefield. In complex military operations, such as those conducted in multinational coalitions or in response to hybrid threats, the need for effective coordination and synchronization of military forces is paramount. At the operational level, military commanders can ensure unity of effort and maximize the effectiveness of military operations, ultimately enhancing the likelihood of success. Therefore, while the debate over the necessity of the operational level may continue, its importance in shaping the outcomes of conflicts and campaigns is always recognized. As military technologies and doctrines evolve, the operational level will continue to adapt and remain relevant in shaping the outcomes of future warfare.
References
Schulze, Matthias. “Cyber in war: Assessing the strategic, tactical, and operational utility of military cyber operations.” In 2020 12th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CyCon), vol. 1300, pp. 183-197. IEEE, 2020.
Benguria, Felipe, Jaerim Choi, Deborah L. Swenson, and Mingzhi Jimmy Xu. “Anxiety or pain? The impact of tariffs and uncertainty on Chinese firms in the trade war.” Journal of International Economics 137 (2022): 103608.
Paterson, Thomas, and Lauren Hanley. “Political warfare in the digital age: cyber subversion, information operations and ‘deep fakes’.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 74, no. 4 (2020): 439-454.
Millett, Allan R. The War for Korea, 1950-1951: they came from the north. University Press of Kansas, 2021.
Jensen, Benjamin M., Christopher Whyte, and Scott Cuomo. “Algorithms at war: the promise, peril, and limits of artificial intelligence.” International Studies Review 22, no. 3 (2020): 526-550.
Onuoha, Freedom C., Chikodiri Nwangwu, and Michael I. Ugwueze. “Counterinsurgency operations of the Nigerian military and Boko Haram insurgency: expounding the viscid manacle.” In Ten Years of Boko Haram in Nigeria: The Dynamics and Counterinsurgency Challenges, pp. 69-94. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023.
Shovlin, John. Trading with the enemy: Britain, France, and the 18th-century quest for a peaceful world order. Yale University Press, 2021.
Kretchik, Walter E. us Army Doctrine: From the American Revolution to the War on terror. University press of Kansas, 2021.
Salaxiddinovna, Mustaeva Guldora, Qurbanova Muxabbat Mamadjanovna, and Saydivalieva Barno Saidbaxromovna. “Stages of Learning Transport Terms in English on the Basis of Modern Technologies.” Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry 12, no. 9 (2021).
Johnstone, Phil, and Caitriona McLeish. “World wars and the age of oil: Exploring directionality in deep energy transitions.” Energy Research & Social Science 69 (2020): 101732.
Burke, Edmund J., Kristen A. Gunness, Cortez A. Cooper, and Mark R. Cozad. People’s Liberation Army operational concepts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2020.
Bordo, Michael D., and Mickey D. Levy. “Do enlarged fiscal deficits cause inflation? The historical record.” Economic Affairs 41, no. 1 (2021): 59-83.
write