Introduction
The operational level of the military is crucial in War. It acts as a bridge between strategic planning and execution of critical operations. It’s vital to translate objectives into achievable actions and deploy the military in large numbers to ensure cohesiveness and unity. This is very essential for the success of any military operation. Nevertheless, the operational levels have both praise and criticism in the military. This leads to debates about the effectiveness and reliability of operational levels in military science. This paper aims to explore the different perspectives of the operational level in depth. It will also examine its function, strengths, weaknesses, and broader implications in military service.
Overview of Operational Level
The operational level of the military comprises the planning and execution of campaigns and primary operations that use operational creativity to achieve military objectives. The operational level of research would examine any actions involving operational creativity, well-campaign, and large-scale operation planning and execution. The term “operational level of war” refers to a particular combat stage in the U.S. military. According to one critic, Anglo-Saxon military terminology encompasses theatre strategy, grand strategy, and tactics. Still, it lacks a term for the operational level of warfare, which is crucial in modern continental European military thought. Senior military officials should prioritize the operational level of War, which has been officially defined and widely analyzed in today’s military environment. General George S. Patton emphasized that no general officer or colonel should be knowledgeable in tactics.
General Patton’s vision and Douglas MacArthur shaped the Operational Level of Warfare in the U.S. military. This level of warfare, characterized by cooperation and efficiency, is effective against less sophisticated opponents and has evolved due to interconnected requirements. The European combat paradigm remains popular, with European warfare standards gaining popularity despite non-European conflicts. The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5 exemplifies European practices. The Operational Level of War evolved in the 19th century due to social, economic, technological, and intellectual influences, with War playing a significant role.
The Operational Level of Military Science
The Operational Level of War is a new distinction in combat, bridging the gap between strategy and tactics. It differs from theatre strategy, which relies on political aims, limits, and resources. The Operational Level allows strategy-driven designs to be implemented at the tactical level, aiming to achieve results that exceed the sum of their parts. This distinction has been a topic of intellectual debate. The Operational Level of conflict involves synchronizing military efforts in a conflict theatre to achieve strategic objectives.
Moreover, It encompasses time and place beyond tactical engagements and emphasizes the importance of command in orchestrating operations across time and a vast region.. Various definitions exist, but historical studies can highlight similar threads. Understanding the operational level can help identify and define characteristics. The Operational level of conflict involves synchronizing military efforts in a conflict theatre to achieve strategic objectives. It encompasses time and place beyond tactical engagements and emphasizes the importance of command in orchestrating operations across time and a vast region.. Various definitions exist, but historical studies can highlight similar threads. Understanding the operational level can help identify and define characteristics. The South’s vast region became an obstacle, and the War’s duration could be estimated by mapping northern armies’ movements until Richmond. Grant focused on the South’s political and moral core by isolating the Confederacy west of the Mississippi. The 18th century saw two significant shifts in time and space: the expansion of warfare and the technical revolution driven by Enlightenment interests.
The Growth of Armies
The late 18th century’s rapid military expansion led to the development of the operational level of combat, requiring human resources for sustained combat across multiple theatres. The number of armies is not the sole factor influencing this development. During the 18th century, commanders led armies with less than 80,000 soldiers. Napoleon led a 600,000-man army into Russia in 1812, while the German Confederation sent twice as many troops against France. Washington led 16,000 Allied men at the Battle of Yorktown. General Sherman prepared 180,000 soldiers for Atlanta and Georgia operations. The Russo-Japanese War was a massive military conflict with significant casualties. Japan had 850,000 troops, with 265,000 serving, from a conscript population of 4.5 million males. Russia had 83,350 combatants in the Manchurian Theatre out of a total army strength of 4.5 million, and by the end, sent around 1,000,000 soldiers. The 19th century saw significant population growth, with the world’s population increasing from 900 million to 1600 million.
Logistics
Logistics is crucial for large armies. In the 18th century, supply issues limited troop deployment. France’s soldiers demonstrated these restrictions, augmented by looting. Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 showed his limitations. High population density improved supply and manoeuvring. By the early 19th century, Western and Central European nations expanded, reducing reliance on magazines and convoys. Napoleon established a comprehensive communication system with France, surpassing previous efforts. Logistics in Manchuria limited Russian and Japanese efforts due to insufficient organic support for military forces. The Japanese supply system was more organized and had shorter communication lines than the Russian one. Despite advantages, the Japanese supply chain struggled to keep up with the Army’s tempo. The British account of the War highlights ammunition shortages as a limiting factor, while Russian forces in the Far East were unprepared due to systemic issues and corruption. Clausewitz’s theory of War differentiates between operational and logistical components of conflict, emphasizing the importance of logistics in developing the operational level of War.
Command Structure
During the 19th century, commanding large armies across Europe required a change in command art, as warfare evolved beyond a single king and logistics remained centralized. France’s troops were organized into corps in 1794 before Bonaparte’s rise. Organizing the Army into smaller corps converted it into a versatile and lethal instrument. The size of these corps, ranging from 20,000 to 30,000 men, was vital in fostering the revolution. The corps, a critical component of Western armies’ operational combat level since the Napoleonic period, enables greater mobility and activity across larger territory. Despite Napoleon’s brilliance, he needed to establish his commander’s staff to successfully control his Army, even if it meant losing battles.
Since the 1600s, the Quartermaster General’s duty has developed from depending on others’ reports and judgments to monitor army movements. In the eighteenth century, leadership was in flux, with the commander-in-chief frequently overseeing intelligence and operations. Despite his advanced staff organization, Napoleon performed his operational planning in solitude, seeing the necessity for decentralization and developing four rules for balanced efforts. Following the French model, the Russian General Staff formalized staff functions to address operational demands. Improvements in communications technology, like the telephone and telegraph, encouraged this growth. The Prussian approach emphasized the institutionalization of greatness, acknowledging that exceptional talent like Napoleon’s was unlikely to be replicated. The evolution of the Operational Level was not driven by staff development but rather by the complexity of the Civil War. The Prussian General Staff, led by Helmuth von Moltke, gained practical control in 1868, allowing the Chief of General Staff to direct subordinate forces without the King or War Minister’s approval.
The Russian-Japanese War
The Franco-Prussian War, the Austro-Prussian War, and The American Civil War occurred in established theatres. At least one combatant used rail systems, and forces used their capabilities. Ironically, the Russo-Japanese War was fought over a railway. The Trans-Siberian Railway, which connected European Russia and the Far East, posed a significant challenge to Japan’s position in Asia. Due to its unique qualities, the Russo-Japanese War offers an intriguing operational study of regional combat. Japanese appreciation of Port Arthur’s importance for sea control in the theatre was a laudable operational decision. Both sides used antiquated tactics against new weaponry, resulting in high casualties and foreshadowing the bloodshed in Europe 10 years later. The Trans-Siberian Railway supported Russian efforts to strengthen the theatre, but the Japanese overestimated its capacity to move.
Significance of Operational Level in Military Science
Translating strategic objectives into operational military campaigns is very vital. This idea provides insights into the target environment. The knowledge helps operational commanders to plan according to their military capabilities and strategic goals. The strategic translation encourages togetherness and cohesiveness among the military. Because soldiers can critically read and analyze the environment before deployment. However, they may not know the enemies’ military capabilities in most cases. In that case, strategic objectives and cohesiveness are essential in military combat.
Flexibility and Operational Art
Creating awareness of War’s impact is essential in the modern era. Military commanders engage in operational art, designing campaigns and strategic thinking employing human rights to educate the general public on the consequences of War. The process involves utilizing different components of military science, such as intelligence, fires, and logistics, to achieve the desired results. In addition, the operational level is adaptive and flexible. Because it explores evolving and dynamic threats, it allows commanders to carry out deep research and plan accordingly to combat modern dynamic threats.In contemporary wars, militaries operate in multi-member mission formations, transitory units comprising armed forces, political institutions, and civilian entities. To achieve flexible, cohesive, collective action, these formations must be adaptable to in-theatre conditions and external demands, as well as expectations about how military forces are deployed.
Joint and Multinational Coordination
Joint warfare is a more comprehensive, national-scale version of combined arms combat in which complementary personnel from a state’s Army, naval, air, coastal, space, and special forces engage in joint operations rather than planning and carrying out military activities separately. In the modern era, the operational level in the military acts as a vital platform for synchronizing and coordinating diversified military capabilities. Cooperation in joint missions enables operational commanders to access the weaknesses and strengths of joint units from different departments in the military. At this point, the operation levels provide collective security efforts in complex operational environments. For instance, deploying the Navy, air, and coastal forces may help easily combat and neutralize threats from all directions. In January 1942, Britain and the United States went so far as to fully integrate their various armed forces in the Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS) in Washington, DC, the organization through which the allies later jointly made all critical combat decisions.
Operational Logistics and Sustainability
Another vital aspect of the operational level is the management of logistics and sustainment operations. To sustain prolonged operations, operational commanders must ensure that military forces have access to the necessary resources, including fuel, ammunition, food, and medical supplies. Logistics planning involves coordinating transportation, supply chains, and distribution networks to maintain deployed forces’ operational readiness and effectiveness. Adequate logistics support is essential for sustaining military operations over extended periods and maintaining personnel morale and combat effectiveness. Logistical operations are a vital input for the success of any organization. Similarly, operational level and logistic management are essential for the success of any military operation. Without proper planning, it is almost impossible to transport cumbersome war weapons to the target areas.
Operational commanders should always ensure that the forces easily access food, medical care, and ammunition to sustain prolonged operations. Logistics involves analyzing safe distribution networks and transport systems and streamlining the most influential supply chain during the War. This is essential in maintaining and sustaining operations. Moreover, with assured access to food, fuel, and healthcare, the soldiers are encouraged to continue with the operations until they achieve the operation’s objective. For instance,according to the 2022 DoD Sustainability Plan, “the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) mission is to provide the military forces required to deter war and ensure our nation’s security.” To properly carry out this task, the Military Departments must have access to the energy, land, air, water, and other natural resources required for development, training, and operation both now and in the future.
Critics of Operational Level
Bureaucracy and Complexity
The operational level in the military has its setbacks. For instance, it has been ridiculed for introducing bureaucracy inefficient and complexity in the military. It complicates operations, planning, and execution. Focusing on large-scale campaigns and operational art may result in complicated plans that take time to sustain and execute. In addition, decision-making hierarchies and bureaucratic processes may hinder timely decision-making and critical execution in operations. For instance, The United States military is separated into three classes: officer, enlisted, and warrant officer. The official chain of command emphasizes the discrepancy by defining qualitatively different entry-level qualifications, such as education, and conferring higher social status on officers, as was done in the British system. This has been criticized as creating an “aristocracy” that has no place in contemporary forces, and the cultural barrier between commanders and troops endures.
In reality, military organizations frequently navigate this false division. Within each class structure, the military maintains tacit norms or traditions that define and, in many cases, erase pay grade differences. When a soldier rises to the level of first Sergeant, Sergeant Major, or Command Sergeant, they typically acquire the authority (the echelon) of the Commanding Officer, gaining equivalent responsibilities above and above the pay grade. Commanders at various headquarters award their senior enlisted leaders significant social prestige, so they sit much above where the standard procedure would position them.
In the 21st century, technologies and current equipment methods of linking and organizing have posed significant challenges to the concept of a completely vertical command structure. After seeing a World War II film, the first author’s small daughter inquired, “Who is in charge?” The sergeants or the generals? Even during World War II, there was no apparent solution to this fundamental issue, but the military culture adhered to the myth of absolute authority concentrated at the top. Leaders lead, and followers follow.
Doctrinal Rigidity and Innovation
Military personnel at the operational level may entirely rely on set operating protocols and doctrines. It hinders them from becoming innovative and adapting to modern global threats. Due to improved technology, the enemies have learned new, complicated ways of dealing with military operations; therefore, it poses a significant challenge to the operational commanders to be innovative and fight back effectively.Within military training institutes, there is a perceived pressure on students to constantly perform well for fear of harming their reputation or professional success. This produces a culture of ‘grey men,’ a phrase used to characterize people who barely get by and are never the best or worst performers. These trainers design operations doctrinally safely to meet the criteria and pass exams. As a result, these trainees work only with the information handed to them and do not strive to question established thinking.
Interservice Rivalries and Coordination Challenges
The operational level encourages Interservice Rivalries and Coordination Challenges. It is likely to happen in multinational and joint military operations. Different service branches within the armed forces may have unique operating procedures and divergent objectives. It may lead to operational challenges in achieving the agenda of the military operation. The lack of unity and cohesiveness in the operations is likely to affect the outcome of the operation negatively.
Moreover, it is likely to increase the risk and complicate mission execution. Regarding disagreements and conflicts among the various service branches, money is frequently the burning subject. Budgetary worries permeate everything. If the Army relinquishes its responsibility in air power, for example, it loses control of some military activities and money. They feel their equipment, personnel, and funding are being taken away. This is what happened after victory in Europe and the Pacific. When the Air Force became an autonomous military branch in 1947, the Army lost fixed-wing combat aircraft and other responsibilities. The Army desired total control and accountability over the United States ground forces to redress the balances.
They were unsuccessful. However, the Navy was under pressure from the Army and the newly constituted Air Force at this juncture. Until this point, Naval Aviation had been in charge of delivering nuclear and conventional bombs and warheads, and the Navy desired to maintain control of strategic bombing missions for the United States. A new supercarrier capable of strategic bombing was commissioned, and construction reached the point where the ship’s keel was poured into the dry dock before the entire project was cancelled. The USS United States supercarrier was never constructed, and the money and duties for strategic bombing were given to the Air Force.
Operational Deception and Information Warfare
In addition, the Operational level encompasses other components, such as psychological and information warfare. Operational commanders may use propaganda and deception to disrupt, influence, and deceive to influence the decision-making process. With rampant corruption in some organizations worldwide, Military bosses may also be affected by misusing their powers. They may be tempted to make decisions based on their interests and benefits. This may negatively affect the military operation. For instance, the deception’s failure or disclosure can substantially impact the friendly commander’s operational activity. The MILDEC plan is often conducted as part of an operating order. As with all military operations, the method of execution requires two core functions: assessment and control.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the operational level of warfare is critical in the military. It plays an essential role in providing a framework and organizing military operations. The operational level offers a significant framework for coordinating flexibility, cohesiveness, and adaptability within the military. Moreover, with proper structures, organization levels ensure that the military personnel receive the required physical and emotional support during an operation. On the other hand, critics argue that the operational level has several setbacks—for instance, bureaucracy, operational rigidity, and coordination challenges. Therefore, there is a need for continuous adaptation and innovations in the military to deal with the dynamic military-related challenges efficiently. However, the operational level remains vital in the military because it bridges strategic objectives and tactical actions. Therefore enabling military personnel to execute their mission in various regions successfully.
Bibliography
Brooks, Risa, Jim Golby, and Heidi Urben. “Crisis of Command: America’s Broken Civil-Military Relationship Imperils National Security.” Foreign Aff. 100 (2021): 64.https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/fora100&div=70&id=&page=
Castillo, Jasen J. Endurance and War: The national sources of military cohesion. Stanford University Press, 2020.https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780804790727/html
Fotion, Nicholas, and Gerard Elfstrom. Military ethics: guidelines for peace and War. Routledge, 2020.https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4217447
Gross, Daniel P., and Bhaven N. Sampat. Inventing the endless frontier: The effects of the World War II research effort on post-war innovation. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2020&as_yhi=2024&q=world+war+development+of+military+art&btnG=
Good, Cameron H., Allison J. Brager, Vincent F. Capaldi, and Vincent Mysliwiec. “Sleep in the United States military.” Neuropsychopharmacology 45, no. 1 (2020): 176-191.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-019-0431-7
Hoeber, Francis P. Military Applications of Modeling: Selected Case Studies. Routledge, 2021.https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003149989/military-applications-modeling-francis-hoeber
Lee, Wayne E., ed. Warfare and Culture in World History. NYU Press, 2020.https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3gO5DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=military+history+world+war&ots=1Cb97bvOwP&sig=bl08-lljXEymRu0BcAV9aDS6yDs&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=military%20history%20world%20war&f=false
Musurmanova, Shakhnoza. “Differences in the British and American variants of military terms.” Journal of Positive School Psychology 6, no. 2 (2022): 3572-3782.https://mail.journalppw.com/index.php/jpsp/article/view/2371
Schneid, Frederick C. “Master narratives in military history: Europe 1789 to 1900.” War & Society 42, no. 1 (2023): 44-51.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07292473.2023.2150478
Serrano, Jesús. “The new European Peace Facility: implications for the planning and conduct of E.U. military operations.” (2022).https://policycommons.net/artifacts/3183687/the-new-european-peace-facility/3982293/
Tellis, Ashley J. “China’s military space strategy.” In Survival 49.3, pp. 41-72. Routledge, 2023.https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003420231-2/china-military-space-strategy-ashley-tellis
Thorpe, Rebecca U. The American warfare state: The domestic politics of military spending. University of Chicago Press, 2020.https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7208/9780226124100/html
Veremis, Thanos. “The military.” In Political Change in Greece, pp. 214-229. Routledge, 2023.https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003457954-14/military-thanos-veremis
von Clausewitz, Karl, and Sun Tzu. “The theory on war.” On War (2022).https://premium.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usmc/mcdp/1/mcdp1_chp2.pdf
Williams, Michael. Civil-military relations and peacekeeping. Taylor & Francis, 2024.https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=UsL0EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1964&dq=Operational+level+in+military+science+&ots=4lkdrEkWJn&sig=YkHSu6yfQ6QKRKmRmZZpFLPcqUY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Wrigley, Cara, Genevieve Mosely, and Michael Mosely. “Defining military design thinking: An extensive, critical literature review.” She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 7, no. 1 (2021): 104-143.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872621000034
Xiaoning, Zhu. “Analysis of military application of UAV swarm technology.” In 2020 3rd International Conference on Unmanned Systems (ICUS), pp. 1200-1204. IEEE, 2020.https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9274974
write