Tactical, Operational, Strategic
Speaking about military and geopolitical matters, I am often asked what is the difference between tactical, operational and strategic levels. Sometimes I also read articles and analyses where the three terms are used incorrectly (usually people tend to confuse tactical and strategic and ignore operational). Here are a few definitions that, I hope, can help clear the issue:
First of all, in brief:
Tactical -> battles
Operational -> campaigns
Strategic -> wars
Now a few classic definitions from land warfare doctrine:
The tactical level applies where the ranges of individual weapon systems are significant. Not so much the range of small arms, but more the range of artillery. The tactical level is usually considered to be concerned with units below the size of a division. This level deals with fighting individual battles. Grand Tactical is the sub-level dealing with the battle, the pure tactical term is usually used to small-unit actions. Skirmish deals with man-to-man.
The operational level deals with divisions, corps and armies (sometimes separate brigade-sized formations such as an armored cavalry regiment, too). Maneuver is on a scale where weapons ranges are not really significant any more. The operational level deals with carrying out operations (like military campaigns) and attaining objectives that support strategic goals.
The strategic level deals with national levels resources and objectives. This is where elements such as economic power and diplomatic power really must be considered as much as military power.
