Do Doctrinal Buzzwords Obscure the Meaning of Operational Art.

摘要

The Army divides war into three levels--strategy, operational art, and tactics. Each level involves different types of activities, but opinions vary on how to differentiate among them. The debate continues even though seven years have passed since operational art entered Army doctrine through the 1982 Field Manual 100-5. This paper examines three doctrinal terms that are part of this debate--operational art, center of gravity, and culminating point. Operational art is a cybernetic function that links national strategy and tactics. Considering it a level of war sometimes obscures the actions that compose this activity. However, the term is so embedded in Army doctrine, removing it is probably not possible. Center of gravity should be removed from doctrine because the term encompasses too many concepts ranging from the mass of an army to a vulnerable line of communications. Culminating point is sufficiently precise to remain in doctrine, but the need for a special term is not apparent. The debate over the terminology obscures the objective of warfare--the defeat of an enemy. Regardless of the conditions that define success, a commander or planner must determine the sequence of actions necessary to accomplish his mission given the resources available. Terminology that aids this process is useful. Terminology that does not aid this process is useless. (kr)