[tcolvin]

Of course you are right that Churchill ran the war, and therefore Churchill is ultimately responsible for what Harris did. How could it be otherwise - ditto Hitler, Stalin, FDR.
But Churchill abdicated his responsibility to Harris, and accepted Harris' priority.
The Chiefs of Staff (COS) under Churchill as Prime Minister and Minister of Defence were tasked with coordinating all the armed forces.
But, as Kennedy said, Harris was beyond the power of the COS, and allowed - by Churchill - to do his thing of area bombing with every other target dismissed as a panacea.
Every now and then Churchill would listen to the COS and direct Harris in the way you describe.
For example - where was BC when the U-Boat pens were being built? Answer, bombing Germany. Only when Britain faced starvation, and the completed U-boat pens were beyond the possibility of destruction, was Harris told by Churchill to bomb them. BC destroyed the French ports but never damaged a submarine. Is that a sensible way to run a war?
The direction of the war was disorganised and ultimately incompetent because of the Churchill/Harris axis. The COS complained, but got nowhere with Churchill and Harris.

I would not dismiss Kennedy. This was a note that he wrote at the time of Tobruk, and certainly reflects COS thinking(page 247);
"In my view the only well-founded ground of criticism of our central war direction now lies in the use we are making of our air force .... If we had diverted, say, 20% of our long-range bomber aircraft to the Middle East, it is doubtful whether Rommel could ever have started his offensive, and more than doubtful whether he could have sustained it at his recent tempo. I should like to take 50% of the bomber effort off Germany even at this late hour, and distribute it in the Atlantic, and in the Middle East and Indian theatres. The price we pay at sea and on land for our present bombing policy is high indeed".

Tony