Mike,
You're missing my point, so I'll try to be clearer.
Perhaps from the bottom up:
The COG is "Good Governance." What I propose here is that if you have good governance you have peace, at least internally to your state.
Critical Requirements ARE the inputs. They are what are required to produce Good Governance. If one sees the COG as the factory; CCs are what the Factory produces; and CRs are the materials the factory requires to produce it.
I see our current development-focused COIN as essentially importing parking lots full of final products in the hope that somehow the "factory" that produces such products will miraculously appear.
So what I propose is that if in fact Good Governance is the COG; and that if in fact these four causal perceptions are what determines if Good Governance exists; then one must logically determine in any given community what the perceptions are on these four factors (giving you your CVs) and focusing on the ones that are negative but also shapeable. HVTs and HVIs are then merely refining ones targeting down to specific families of action and specific projects within those families.
So, yes, it is a "systems" slide in that it takes a fuzzy concept like COG and frames it in a predictive, logical format that allows COG to more than just a slide in the Command Brief that drives nothing; or a topic for strategy geeks to debate at the club.
If you are confused by the slide start at one end and work your way to the other. It is a simple reduction/refining process.
I contend that currently we focus on those things that exist in a state that has no insurgency, and believe that if we produce those things in a state that has insurgency, the insurgency will go away. I offer that that logic is flawed and is not likely to work. It is based on observation of the symptoms of insurgency rather than being based on the root causes of insurgency.
Bookmarks