Campaigning: The Journal of the Joint Forces Staff College 10 December 2021

1

Book Review

On Operations: Operational Art and Military Disciplines

by Brett Friedman

Reviewed by1

Luke P. Bellocchi

Associate Professor of Practice, JFSC

In On Operations: Operational Art and Military Disciplines, Brett Friedman provides a 

comprehensive study of military operations from a historical and theoretical basis. Friedman is a 

United States Marine officer, a graduate of the Naval War College, and On Operations is his 

second book. In the book, he reviews debates about how operations should be defined and used, 

along with historical examples of application, leading to a distillation and evaluation of 

contemporary thinking about how operational art can best serve modern military campaigns. 

The crux of Friedman’s book is his proposed theory of operational art, which he describes as 

having more to do with “how military staffs should be trained, organized, and equipped.” 

Friedman defines operational art as “the planning, preparation, conduct, and sustainment of 

tactics aimed at accomplishing strategic effect,” requiring knowledge in the specific disciplines 

of administration, information, operations, fire support, logistics, and command and control. The 

disciplines roughly correspond to the U.S. joint staff functions outlined in U.S. joint doctrine 

(Joint Publication 1-0, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States). After developing his 

theory, Friedman provides a few short chapters describing why the disciplines are critical to 

understanding operations. Friedman’s focus is highly theoretical, which may prove to divide 

potential audiences. To a student new to the study of the operational dimension of warfare, 

Friedman’s theory provides a good learning tool since it works both historically and 

conceptually. The more advanced learner may question whether Friedman’s semantic changes 

lead to benefits in practice. 

In the introduction, Friedman provides his description of operational art as “what military staffs 

do to manage the complexity of modern warfare as a parallel supporting function to strategy and 

tactics without there being an interposing operational level of war.” In reviewing past debates on 

how staff officers should view operations, and providing his view, Friedman offers an objective 

and extensive examination of how operational art relates to the study of warfare, in both actuality 

and from an ideal point of view. However, by his own admission, the weakness is that it is 

entirely based on Western thinking on the subject and is very much focused on the land war 

aspects of operations. 

1 The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of Joint 

Forces Staff College, National Defense University, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Campaigning: The Journal of the Joint Forces Staff College 10 December 2021

2

Friedman’s historical analysis of operational art starts with German, Russian, and American 

military doctrine from the Napoleonic era with an emphasis on civil-military relationships. In the 

German case, the military divorced itself from civilian control leading to a dangerous “state 

within a state,” contributing to mistakes such as unrestricted submarine warfare in World War I 

(WWI) that won military objectives but lost civilian moral support. Conversely, the Russian 

case demonstrates what can happen when there is too much civilian interference in military 

affairs. Finally, he describes the American case to highlight the implications of policymakers 

who do not take enough responsibility for creating realistic political goals and a military that 

refuses to fill the void. Friedman’s solution: The military should not be partisan but cannot be 

apolitical.

Friedman attempts to use his theory and historical context to evaluate the modern staff system in 

the U.S. Friedman believes “what is needed is a marriage of the best part of the Scharnhorst 

Model—the career pipeline—with a ‘base model’ staff designed to be collaborative, along with 

the empowerment of commanders to modify their staff organization to meet each situation and 

mission.” In one recommendation, Friedman suggests that military organizations should modify 

training and education to provide a curriculum focused on staff actions from a staff perspective 

rather than from a commander’s perspective and operational theory. The recommendation will 

likely spark initial interest but ultimately leave readers unfulfilled. Indeed, some military 

education programs focus on developing the skills staff officers need to meet the requirements of 

a commander. One could certainly argue that good staffers must anticipate the needs of those 

they serve. Still, training could also focus on the needs of the staff to produce operational art 

apart from the perspective of a commander. 

Friedman reviews many historical examples of and debates about operational art and, thus, it 

would be a good text to teach operations from a historical and theoretical perspective. Using the 

book in an educational setting would facilitate class discussion on what has happened and what 

is possible for developing operational art. Proportionally, the historical analysis comprises a 

large part of the book, which, for many readers, is likely to induce a feeling of delayed 

gratification. Comparatively, the evaluation of contemporary practices is short, which leaves 

many areas unexamined. Friedman’s book, however, as one can probably tell from the allusions 

to Clausewitzian theory in the title, is heavily philosophical. Additionally, his suggestions for 

change are perhaps too detached and underdeveloped for practical application. Ironically, 

practical application is the underpinning of operational art.

Book Information:

On Operations: Operational Art and Military Disciplines

by Brett Friedman

Naval Institute Press, 2021. 256 pp.