Army doctrine, turns them into synonyms without any distinction. However, when we add the modifier, ‘operational’ to them, U.S. The former is a creative process, the latter, is a location. No one argues that, art and level are synonyms. Can they both be right or must one be wrong? I will argue that ADRP 3-0 is and wrong and incorrectly merges operational art and the operational level of war. However, if you picked paragraph two, you recognized the Army’s ADRP 3-0 discussion of operational art. You might argue that paragraph two is flat out wrong. If you picked paragraph one, you probably agree with joint doctrine’s use of the terms. One suggests a difference between the terms the other does not. The second paragraph makes no distinction and only uses the term operational art. The first paragraph uses both terms and makes a distinction between them.
#THE OPERATIONAL ART OF WAR IV SERIES#
Without operational art, tactical actions devolve into a series of disconnected engagements that do not accomplish the mission or objectives of the joint force.” Ī critical reader will notice the only difference between the two is the use of the terms operational art and the operational level of war. Bridging this continuum requires creative vision coupled with broad experience and knowledge. Paragraph 2: “Operational art spans a continuum-from comprehensive strategic direction to concrete tactical actions. Without the operational level of war, tactical actions devolve into a series of disconnected engagements that do not accomplish the mission or objectives of the joint force.” Bridging this continuum requires operational art which is creative vision coupled with broad experience and knowledge. Paragraph 1: “The operational level of war spans a continuum-from comprehensive strategic direction to concrete tactical actions. Operational Art and the Operational Level of War, are they Synonymous? Well It Depends.
0 kommentar(er)
