Levels of War: Lesson 1
For more information about this subject, see Warfighting by the U.S. Marine Corps Staff.
The doctrines of war define conflicts using three levels of war. A large part of fighting a war successfully requires that military leaders plan and fight that war on all of the three levels. Prominent wars have been lost because wars were fought successfully on one level, but unsuccessfully on another level.
The lowest level, and the easiest to understand, is the tactical level. The tactical level of war is that which takes place on the battlefield. When a lance corporal fires his weapon at a Taliban soldier, that is the tactical level of war; when a squad opens fire on an Ansar al Islam mortar position in Fallujah, that is the tactical level of war; when a platoon of Army Rangers throws a volley of grenades into a militia position in Mogadishu, that is the tactical level of war. By extension, tactics are the plans pertaining to this level of war. On the tactical level of war, hills are taken to support other adjacent units, close air support is provided to relieve pressure against forces on the tactical level. This is the most basic level of warfare, the level led by the lieutenants and the staff non-commissioned officers.
The middle level of war is the operational level. This combines the tactical elements of a conflict into an overall operational plan. It is the level of theaters and campaigns. When Tomahawk missiles are launched from cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and submarines prior to an invasion, that is the operational level of war. When amphibious assault ships sat off the coast of Iraq in 1991 to distract the Iraqi Army into spreading itself thin, allowing the Army to invade from the north with tanks, that was executed on the operational level of war. Operations are intermediate, combining and coordinating the events that occur on the tactical level in order to further the overall strategic goals. Operation al Fajr, for example, supported the overall goals of Operation Iraqi Freedom by eliminating Fallujah as a stronghold and safe haven for terrorists; this supported the overall strategic goals by adding to the stability and security of Iraq. The operational level of war is led by the colonels and the sergeants major.
The final level is the strategic level. The strategic level combines the operational campaigns of all force branches in an effort to wrap them into a single, tangible effort to achieve the goals of the nation. During World War II, one of the goals of the allies was the unconditional surrender of the Japanese Empire. In order to achieve this, the allies put military and financial pressure on the Japanese allies in the West (Germany and Italy) in order to eliminate the Japanese war machine, while simultaneously engaging in deliberate military operations in the Pacific theater in order to break the Japanese military by eliminating its mobility, supply lines, equipment, and personnel. These efforts all combined in a strategic effort to achieve the ultimate goal of eliminating Japan as a threat to American national security, both domestic and economic. The strategic level of war is led by generals, admirals, and politicians.
A war can be won on the tactical and operational levels, and lost in the overall strategic level. For example, during the Vietnam Conflict, American forces achieved overwhelming military superiority, and held it throughout the conflict. Neither the North Vietnamese Army nor the Viet Cong could at any time dominate or achieve an overwhelming victory against allied forces. For example, the infamous Tet Offensive of 1968, American forces achieve a crippling victory over the NVA and VC. This battle, which could have been the last death throes of the Communist campaign against the Republic of Vietnam, was an overwhelming tactical and operational victory; however, it was turned into an overwhelming strategic defeat by political pressure from various politicians, who refused to give the military the leeway they needed to consolidate the victory. While a strong case can be made that Vietnam was actually a military victory for the United States, the impression that many biased (and often ignorant) journalists and historians give is that it was a bona fide loss. While this ignores the fact that the Vietnam Conflict stifled the spread of communism throughout Southeast Asia, but for the purposes of this entry, the point is that an overwhelming tactical and operational victory was squandered due to lackluster strategic planning and execution.
By comparison, the American Civil War was characterized by frequent and severe tactical defeats for the Union Army; however, the Union ultimately triumphed in that conflict because under General Ulysses S. Grant, any tactical victory the Confederate Army was able to secure was at a great strategic loss, be it in manpower, supplies, or territory. Until Grant was appointed and began winning battles, the Union suffered colossal losses at the tactical level, which translated into losses on the operational and strategic levels; however, the fact that other operational successes, such as the Union Navy's successful blockade, limited the ability of the Confederate Army to secure tactical and operational successes. Thus, although the Union Army kept having its collective ass handed back to it on a silver platter with parsley and a lemon wedge whenever it took the battlefield, it was still able to ensure that the Confederate States were limited to pyrrhic victories. As a result, an overall tactical defeat translated into a strategic victory.
In our next lesson, we'll discuss how World War IV (the International War on Terror) translates into these three levels of war, and what the strategy for victory on all three levels is.
The doctrines of war define conflicts using three levels of war. A large part of fighting a war successfully requires that military leaders plan and fight that war on all of the three levels. Prominent wars have been lost because wars were fought successfully on one level, but unsuccessfully on another level.
The lowest level, and the easiest to understand, is the tactical level. The tactical level of war is that which takes place on the battlefield. When a lance corporal fires his weapon at a Taliban soldier, that is the tactical level of war; when a squad opens fire on an Ansar al Islam mortar position in Fallujah, that is the tactical level of war; when a platoon of Army Rangers throws a volley of grenades into a militia position in Mogadishu, that is the tactical level of war. By extension, tactics are the plans pertaining to this level of war. On the tactical level of war, hills are taken to support other adjacent units, close air support is provided to relieve pressure against forces on the tactical level. This is the most basic level of warfare, the level led by the lieutenants and the staff non-commissioned officers.
The middle level of war is the operational level. This combines the tactical elements of a conflict into an overall operational plan. It is the level of theaters and campaigns. When Tomahawk missiles are launched from cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and submarines prior to an invasion, that is the operational level of war. When amphibious assault ships sat off the coast of Iraq in 1991 to distract the Iraqi Army into spreading itself thin, allowing the Army to invade from the north with tanks, that was executed on the operational level of war. Operations are intermediate, combining and coordinating the events that occur on the tactical level in order to further the overall strategic goals. Operation al Fajr, for example, supported the overall goals of Operation Iraqi Freedom by eliminating Fallujah as a stronghold and safe haven for terrorists; this supported the overall strategic goals by adding to the stability and security of Iraq. The operational level of war is led by the colonels and the sergeants major.
The final level is the strategic level. The strategic level combines the operational campaigns of all force branches in an effort to wrap them into a single, tangible effort to achieve the goals of the nation. During World War II, one of the goals of the allies was the unconditional surrender of the Japanese Empire. In order to achieve this, the allies put military and financial pressure on the Japanese allies in the West (Germany and Italy) in order to eliminate the Japanese war machine, while simultaneously engaging in deliberate military operations in the Pacific theater in order to break the Japanese military by eliminating its mobility, supply lines, equipment, and personnel. These efforts all combined in a strategic effort to achieve the ultimate goal of eliminating Japan as a threat to American national security, both domestic and economic. The strategic level of war is led by generals, admirals, and politicians.
A war can be won on the tactical and operational levels, and lost in the overall strategic level. For example, during the Vietnam Conflict, American forces achieved overwhelming military superiority, and held it throughout the conflict. Neither the North Vietnamese Army nor the Viet Cong could at any time dominate or achieve an overwhelming victory against allied forces. For example, the infamous Tet Offensive of 1968, American forces achieve a crippling victory over the NVA and VC. This battle, which could have been the last death throes of the Communist campaign against the Republic of Vietnam, was an overwhelming tactical and operational victory; however, it was turned into an overwhelming strategic defeat by political pressure from various politicians, who refused to give the military the leeway they needed to consolidate the victory. While a strong case can be made that Vietnam was actually a military victory for the United States, the impression that many biased (and often ignorant) journalists and historians give is that it was a bona fide loss. While this ignores the fact that the Vietnam Conflict stifled the spread of communism throughout Southeast Asia, but for the purposes of this entry, the point is that an overwhelming tactical and operational victory was squandered due to lackluster strategic planning and execution.
By comparison, the American Civil War was characterized by frequent and severe tactical defeats for the Union Army; however, the Union ultimately triumphed in that conflict because under General Ulysses S. Grant, any tactical victory the Confederate Army was able to secure was at a great strategic loss, be it in manpower, supplies, or territory. Until Grant was appointed and began winning battles, the Union suffered colossal losses at the tactical level, which translated into losses on the operational and strategic levels; however, the fact that other operational successes, such as the Union Navy's successful blockade, limited the ability of the Confederate Army to secure tactical and operational successes. Thus, although the Union Army kept having its collective ass handed back to it on a silver platter with parsley and a lemon wedge whenever it took the battlefield, it was still able to ensure that the Confederate States were limited to pyrrhic victories. As a result, an overall tactical defeat translated into a strategic victory.
In our next lesson, we'll discuss how World War IV (the International War on Terror) translates into these three levels of war, and what the strategy for victory on all three levels is.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home