In article , Andrew Chaplin
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Doolittle raid

Tactical mission, but politically strategic.

Was there not a change in the deployment of Japan's air forces as a
result? If so, would it not fall into the strategic realm?

Part of the problem in placing this particular raid is that it was
planned mostly for domestic morale reasons, not the immense strategic
effect it actually had. We get into the fundamental definition of
"strategic".

In general, I use "strategic" to describe an air operation that will
have a significant effect on the entire war, without major interaction
with other operations. The Doolittle raid, in particular, brings up the
question "do the planners need to be aware they are trying for a major
[strategic] effect?"

This didn't appear to be a consideration in planning this raid -- the
effect was unforeseen. Perhaps we can also consider what might be
called "negative strategic" decisions, such as Goering deciding to stop
what we'd now call a SEAD campaign, and switch to city bombing.