On Operational Art

232 Pages·2014·30.09 MB·English

ON OPERATIONAL ART
Clayton R. Newell
and
Michael D. Krause
General Editors
Center of Military History
United States Army
Washington, D.C., 1994
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
On opc1 ational <trt C:la\lon R. L\cwdl and :\lichad D. Kmu~c.·, !{CIH-1.11
cdiiOI~
p. em.
In dudes bibliog. aphiral n:fcrcne<:~ and index.
I. Operational a1t (\I ilitan ~ckncl') I. :'\ewdl. ("1;\\ ton R. .
1942- II. Knnl\c.', \1ichael D. (~li<had Dctld). 1!112-
U I 63.0!i 1994
355.02-clc20 94-2101:\
Cll'
C:'-111 l'uh i0-5·1
First Pt inting
Fm ~.lie.• h) the U.S. C:ow·tnnlC'tll Printing Of fin·
Supt·rinlenocm of Donunc.·nt~. :\!ail Stop: SSOP. \\'a,hingwn, DC ~040~-~~:~~!l
Foreword
In 1982 rhe Deparunent of the Army re,'ised FM I 00-3. Opera
liom. Billed as the keystone "How to Fight Manual," the new docu
ment provided the basis for Lhe Army's rapidly evolving docu·ine,
training, and organit.ational concepts. As such it marked a signifi
cant departure from previous editions of FM I 00-5, and its ideas
-.parked contrO\'ersy among nitics in and out of tlw scn·ice. One
of the most contro\'ersial concepts was the introduction of the op
erational level of war. a division of warfare falling between Lhe
more traditional categories of tactics and strategy. "Most simply,"
FM 100-5 stated. th<· operational level of war was "the theory of
larger unit operations.·· The manual went on to explain that it also
itwol\'ed planning and conducting campaigns, while tactics con
sisted of techniques for smaller units and strategy was the employ
ment of the nation\ armed forces to secure national polic~· objec
tives. Comrm·erS)' arose because the concept was new to American
military doctrine. Although advocates argued that operational art
had been pan of European militarr theory since the nineteenth
centuq, many American officers questioned its practicality, ini
tiall) seeing little need to expand the -;tudy of militaq affairs be
)Oild the more traditional su·ategy and taCtics.
When the Army again revised its doctrine in 1986 the opera
tional level ofwar became operational an. a term more commonly
associated with Soviet military donrinc. This change, interpreted
b) many as incorporating into Armv doctrine a concept from the
L'nitcd States' greatc'>t potential CIW111). the so,·iet L'nion, added
fuel to the debate.
Between 19R8 and 1990 the Center of 1'vlilitary I Iistorr in\'ited
a group of senior commanders and military theorists to present
their comments on the subject. The essays in this volume are the
re')ult of that effon. They repre'>cnt individual rclkction'> on opcl·
ational an dudng its c\'olmionary pc1 iod . .r\t the time they were
written, :-\ATO, and the So,·iet threat it was designed to counter.
occupied cem<.-r stage in American milit<lry thinking. ~!any senior
iii
commanders thus viewed the concept of operational an in the
comcxt of preparing for a large land war in Central Europe. Since
the project began more than fi,·c rears ago the world has changed
dramatically and unexpectedly. Today, with the <;tunning success
of American military power in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the con
cept of operational art has become widely accepted in the U.S.
military establishment as a valid and useful concept for planning
and conductingjoint warf~trc.
This collection presenL<; a historical snapshot of the develop
ment of operational art when the Army's attention was focused on
Europe and the Soviet Union. Students of military hiswry and
theory of war· will find it useful in stud);ng the C\olution of doc
trine from theory into practice.
Washington, D.C. HAROLD W. NELSON
September 1993 Brigadier General, USA
Chief of Military I fistory
1\
Ackno"vledgments
This volume began as the brainchild of Brig. Gen. William A.
Stoffl shortly after the publication of the 1986 edition of FM I 00-5,
Opn'fltions. As the Chief of Military I Iistory he believed the doctri
nal debate then going on m·cr the concept of operational an ,,·as
of historical significance. At his request a number of />Cnior Armr
commanckr and historians agreed w prepare essays (or an amhol
ogy of operational art.
ln 1989, when General Stoffl left the Center of Military I listory,
he turned the project over to the Deputy Chief of Military I Iistory,
Col. Michael D. Krause. Colonel Krause expanded the effort to in
clude essays from commanders and theorists outside the U.S. Army.
Although most of the essays arc from Army writers, he acquired im
portant conu·ibutions from l\:avy and Air Force officers as well as a
prominent Get-man officer, thus adding a joint and combined flavor.
The time and effort put forth by members of the re,·ie\\ panel
who read and commented on <.'ach essa~ must be rccognitcd. Dr.
Jeffrey Clarke, the Army's Chief I Iistorian chaired the panel. Mem
bership included Brig. Gen. IJarolcl W. Nelson, the Chief' of Military
llistory, Col. Ralph Allen, Chairman of the Department of Military
Strategy, Plans and Operations at the Army War College, and Dr.
Ilarold Winton, Professor of Military History at the Air War Col
lege>. Their insightfuJ and candid comments tied the essays lOgcther.
The edilOrial work of Peter A. Curtiss ensured that the essays
met the rigid standards of the Center without erasing the unique
voices of the authors. Th<' maps were prepared by Sherry Dowdy,
the Center's fine cartographer, and Beth F. MacKen.de prepat·ed
the charts.
Finally, the patience of the contributors themselves must be ac
knowledged. When this prqject was first conceived they could not
have anticipated that what began as contemporary commentary
would become history before it was published.

Contents
Pagr
Introduction ................. . 3
Lieutenant Colonel Cla_)'lon R. Newell, USA
On Operational Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Lintlenanf ColonPl Clayton R. Newell, USA
Theoretical Implications of Operational Art. 17
Professorjmnes]. Schneider
The Ground Commander's View-I 31
General Glenn K. Otis, USA
The Ground Commander's View-ll. 47
General Crosme Saint, USA
Aerospace Operational An . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Lieutenant Colonel Price T Bingham, USAF
The Air Campaign ...... . 85
Colonel john Warden, USAF
The Air Commander's View .. 113
General Charles J·: Donnelly, USAF
Operational Art in a Continental Theater . . . . . . . 1 19
General Hans Henning von Sandmrt, German Army
Operational An in a Maritime Theater. 133
Admiml William Small, USN
Operational Art in a Low Intensity Theater 153
General Paul F. Gorman, USA
Vll
Page
Education and Training for Theater Warfare 171
Major General L. D. Holde1; USA
Leadership at the Operational Level ofWar. 189
Major General William A. Stoffl, USA
Reading About Operational Art .. 197
Colonel Richanl M. Swain, USA
Contributors and General Editors 211
Glossary 215
Index .. 217
Charts
No.
1. Allied Command Europe (ACE) 6
2. AFCENT Organization. . 37
3. AFSOUTH Organization. 139
Maps
l. Allied Forces Central Europe, 1989. 121
2. Allied Forces Southern Europe, 1989 . 134
viii