Operationalizing The Jones Model through COG

[Bob's World]

Sorry but CvC is the only valid provider of what a COG is.

He is quite clear. The/A COG is that from which the enemy draws his "strength and cohesion", - and which can be harmed (against which the blow should be focussed)! If a COG is "destroyed", then the enemy cannot exist or even re-generate as an effective force.

We can make up new words and new definitions to alter the fact and truths to fit the opinion, but as concerns the only precise meaning of "COG" in military thought, that is it!

In war each opponent has a COG; he must defend his own and seek to destroy the other's.

In COIN the COG is shared. Both insurgent and Counterinsurgent compete for the support of the populace, both compete to be perceived as the provider of Good Governance. A COG is something to be earned, not protected or destroyed.

Carl is the master of warfare, and his theories can be applied to Insurgency, but they must be adapted in full recognition that Warfare and Insurgency are two different things.

Those who believe COIN to be extremely difficult and likely to be a long drawnout affair believe so because they fight it like a war; or because they think they can develop their way out of it. One can fight a long war and ultimately suppress the symptoms of insurgency; one can perhaps give a populace so much "stuff" that they stop resisting your poor governance. Or, one can produce Good Governance and make the insurgency go away. I'd love to have this conversation with CvC. While most of his deciples will fight me to the mat, like Peter slicing the Roman soldiers ear from his head with his sword to protect his master; I think CvC would immediatlely grasp the nuance I put before him.

[William F. Owen]

In COIN the COG is shared. Both insurgent and Counterinsurgent compete for the support of the populace, both compete to be perceived as the provider of Good Governance. A COG is something to be earned, not protected or destroyed.

Then it's not a COG! It's something completely different. You need to call it something else, and not muddy the existing proven and good theory by using the same term in an imprecise and confusing way.

Carl is the master of warfare, and his theories can be applied to Insurgency, but they must be adapted in full recognition that Warfare and Insurgency are two different things.

I strongly disagree. Insurgencies use violence for a a political purpose, therefore War, thus is conducted using warfare - as were many countless rebellions and revolts throughout history.

One can fight a long war and ultimately suppress the symptoms of insurgency; one can perhaps give a populace so much "stuff" that they stop resisting your poor governance.

Yes anyone can do stupid stuff, by ignoring the fundamentals of warfare. Your job, as a soldier is to break the military means used to oppose the policy. The policy is none of your business unless you are an Army not accountable to it's civilian leaders.

This is nothing to do with suppressing symptoms. Ends Ways and Means!! Your sole job is to prevent the "enemy" attaining his policy via violence. If he does it using song, art or ballet, good for him. Your job is to ensure he does not use violence and opts for peaceful means.

[slapout9]

If he does it using song, art or ballet, good for him. Your job is to ensure he does not use violence and opts for peaceful means.

So subversion,espionage,sabotage,blackmail are OK and are not Acts of War?

[William F. Owen]

So subversion,espionage,sabotage,blackmail are OK and are not Acts of War?

Not OK and depends on the context. By act of war, do you mean "warfare?" None of those things are warfare in and of themselves.
None of the things you cite, are in of themselves military task to counter.
They may well be criminal. Do they involve killing? All those things are far more likely to fall towards police/state security, than the army.

An Army can only be used against armed force.

[slapout9]

Not OK and depends on the context. By act of war, do you mean "warfare?" None of those things are warfare in and of themselves.
None of the things you cite, are in of themselves military task to counter.
They may well be criminal. Do they involve killing? All those things are far more likely to fall towards police/state security, than the army.

An Army can only be used against armed force.

OK so it is Special Warfare instead of all this UW,IW,COIN,FID,FAD,stuff.

[William F. Owen]

OK so it is Special Warfare instead of all this UW,IW,COIN,FID,FAD,stuff.

Dunno. It's almost certainly "Irregular". May have something to do with "FID." At what point does a fire, merit the fire brigade? Context, context and context.