Actually, I think that's a great comparison - a lot like the fire triangle (heat+fuel+oxygen=fire).

Personally, I believe that in Iraq and Afghanistan the COG is the people, but a large subset of the people. People fall along a spectrum - some will violently support our cause, more will somewhat support it, most won't support either side, a bunch will support the insurgents and a few will actively and violently do so.

The target of the enemy is, I think, that great mass in the middle. By keeping them cowed they can obtain: intelligence, money, food, water, shelter, clothing, vehicles, weapons, freedom of movement and protection.

My reasoning behind the choice of target is this: they don't need to target themselves, or their immediate supporters, and they can't do much to target those who violently support our side because we make efforts to protect them. So they aim for the middle first - by creating a feeling of danger and the sense that the insurgency is omnipresent and unstoppable.

Successful counterinsurgency strategies don't just try to "win over" people to your side - they also protect those people. If government forces demonstrate that they can keep an individual and his or her family safe, that individual will be able (not necessarily willing) to assist the government. The hearts and minds campaign and addressing the underlying injustice which motivated the insurgency only win information and recruits to our cause if those people are able to help us without committing suicide.