Yeah, close enough I guess.
The strategic objective is probably closer to "starve the enemy of
war supplies, materials and equipment, reducing morale and forcing
them to surrender."
Operational decisions would probably be to reach and hold a
particular enemy industrial centre. Subsequent decisions and
observations may sound like, "by attacking and holding the few
certain towns, we can create forward strong points and supply areas
to mass and punch through the enemy defenses that are likely to be
concentrated along the avenues of advance to the industrial
centers."
Tactical decisions may sound like, "As there are limited/
constricted approaches to xxx town, we may require heavy artillery
and air support to suppress the enemy while attacking from the
forest with dismounted troops and along the road with mounted
forces."
I'm not an expert in this field, but this is what I gather from
some of the material I have looked up. Decisions at which ever
level will no doubt impact the rest of the levels, especially at
the Strategic level. Sh!t rolls down the hill. =)
Though they are hard to tell apart sometimes, I guess it can be
observed when the decisions are actually implemented. Generally, a
tactical decision should support an operational objective, and an
operational decision should support directly or indirectly a
strategic goal.
But for lay folks like myself, I prefer not to get confused by all
this. If the decision is made by the President, or Supreme
Commander etc, its a Strategic Decision. If its made by some
smaller generals and colonels, its Operational. Majors and below,
Tactical. 