Theory of Conflict and Operational Art

Several theoretical and doctrinal problems limit current US Army understanding of conflict, war and operational art. Those problems include confusion between conflict and war, ambiguity of theoretical terms such as "center of gravity" or "culminating point", and difficulty in describing the mechanism through which operational art links tactical successes to strategic aims. The premise of this monograph is that several of these problems can be attributed to a failure to understand war as a subset of conflict. The monograph attempts to outline a theoretical model of operational art as an aspect of conflict rather than of war. The theoretical relationship of conflict, war and operational art is presented using a "structure" analogy. Conflict theory is the foundation of the doctrinal structure. The structure itself encompasses both war and warfare ("actions short of war"). Operational art is a structural framework necessary for success in both war and warfare. The basic element of the conflict theory is ideas. Ideas are our perception of reality. Political entities are groups of individuals that share ideas about power and exhibit varying degrees of morale, discipline and cohesion. Conflict is the mutual contradiction of ideas. Conflict resolution is the competition of ideas between political entities. Its ends are the reconfiguration of the contradictory idea set. The fundamental components of its means are reason and violence. The competition is waged in the physical, cybernetic and moral domains. Aspects of that competition include fog, friction and chance. The basic component of the operational art model is linkage. Political entities designate a desired end state of conflict resolution; operational artists design military conditions that will realize this end state. The mechanism of decision in operational art is the dynamic interaction of combatants contesting their directed will and available means to achieve their respective end states. The operational artist