The search for an effective way to defeat the enemy in battle has been an enduring one for military commanders throughout history.

Middle powers have small military forces that operate almost exclusively within the context of a coalition or alliance framework, and remain focussed largely on tactics and tactical level issues

Modern military theory and practice divides war into three distinct and hierarchical levels: the strategic, operational, and tactical.

For centuries, militaries have sought decisive battle to destroy the majority of an enemy’s forces in one tactical action. Such an action was believed to provide resounding victory in war.

Is the ongoing desire of Western Militaries to seek a decisive battle or effect that will defeat an adversary quickly and efficiently at odds with the concept of Operational Art?

The capacity of Australia, as a middle power, to shape and control what happens within the Indo-Pacific region alone is limited by its relative military strength and economic influence.

Throughout history, militaries the world over have sought victory through high-intensity force-on-force battles against their adversaries in the hope that a decisive battlefield victory would lead to strategic success.

While western militaries have often expressed a preference for rapid, decisive victories, rapidly achieving military objectives does not guarantee the achievement of political objectives.

By employing operational art as a bridge between tactical actions and overarching strategic objectives, military planners aim to coordinate and direct a series of operations towards an overarching campaign end-state.

The character of war is constantly changing, and with its associated complexity and uncertainty, this is making military planning a more challenging undertaking.