operational vs. strategic level (of military command)

[|ndußtrial]

would supplying troops at a base be an action at the operational or strategic level? the line between tactical and operational is kind of clearer to me (if you make an action against personnel who are currently engaged in a battle, it's tactical, from what i know; please correct me if this is not the case,) but i can't totally get operational and strategic apart; is operational only personnel and materiel or is strategic less broad?
*edit - would the first shots fired during an ambush or similar maneuver, before the enemy responds, be considered operational in capacity?*

[darkhaven3]

The hierarchy is thus: Strategic, Operational, Tactical.

Supplying troops at a base is an operational level activity. It has no bearing on the objective directly, but is a logistical necessity in order to execute the tactical part of the mission, whatever that may be.

An ambush is tactical-level in actual execution. Your men are already equipped, the operation is underway, and now you make the decision on your own in the field to hit them before they hit you. They can be planned at a higher level (typically no higher than operational-level) but their execution is strictly at the tactical level.

To gist of it is thus: my strategy is to order my men to Afghanistan to go kill Big Boss or whatever. Operationally, my officers and high-ranking guys will devise a plan that is then broken down to NCO's on the ground, who will devise their own tactics for dealing with the mission.

[|ndußtrial]

The hierarchy is thus: Strategic, Operational, Tactical.

Supplying troops at a base is an operational level activity. It has no bearing on the objective directly, but is a logistical necessity in order to execute the tactical part of the mission, whatever that may be.

An ambush is tactical-level in actual execution. Your men are already equipped, the operation is underway, and now you make the decision on your own in the field to hit them before they hit you. They can be planned at a higher level (typically no higher than operational-level) but their execution is strictly at the tactical level.

To gist of it is thus: my strategy is to order my men to Afghanistan to go kill Big Boss or whatever. Operationally, my officers and high-ranking guys will devise a plan that is then broken down to NCO's on the ground, who will devise their own tactics for dealing with the mission.

if there's, for example, an airfield, and you supply this, would the action be strategic?

[darkhaven3]

Operational. Strategic actions are broad in scope, such as "beat the fuck out of North Korea". They don't necessarily lay out a plan for how to accomplish the mission or what to do like "resupply the airfield".

A lot of the time, logistics-related activities like getting supplies to your people are operational. Almost never does this actually come down to a tactical decision, unless you're in a firefight already; and almost never does this escalate to a strategic-level problem. If it does, your entire chain of command is probably fucked up from top-to-bottom.

I guess another way you can look at it is: "strategy" is me as the CO just telling my people to get something done; "operations" are the officers and first-sergeants and the like actually laying out a plan on how to do it.

[Gez]

Strategic decisions are largely outside the scope of the military itself (except of course in military dictatorships) -- it's the government that's in charge of strategic thinking. That's why, for example, the President of the United States has the title of commander-in-chief despite not being military. Examples of strategic decisions:
- Abolish or establish conscription
- Change size or posture of armed forces
- Enter or leave alliances with other countries
- Decide weapon procurement

The military can certainly advise and influence strategic thinking, but in the end strategic decisions are the government's job. On the other hand, operational and tactical decisions are firmly in the hands of the military.

Sometimes the distinction can seem a bit blurred. For example, the hit on Osama bin Laden had to be directly approved by Obama. But it was because sending a military operation inside a nominally allied country, without working with said country or even telling them about it in advance, was definitely a strategic decision.

[|ndußtrial]

you guys were more concise than every pamphlet on this i found... thank you, i think i've finally got it!