Center of Gravity Construct

[Steve Blair]

Good post, Marc. I'm not sure why (perhaps it's the fact that I'm a history type as opposed to a physics type) but I always viewed the CoG as a process rather than a static thing.

[marct]

Thanks, Steve. Actually, we are probably alike that way - I never could understand how it could be static . 'sides that, even in physics it's a process so if we use it to gain insights, it's probably better to try and use it understanding the context it was written in. I s'pose it all comes out of people looking for a solid "thing" rather than a fluid event

Marc

[Steve Blair]

I suspect you're right about the fluid versus solid thing, Marc. One of the things you learn from history if you study it properly (trying to understand causes and perspectives as opposed to block memorization of dates... ) is that most events are very fluid. Based on this, I think of CoGs as shifting targets and areas of importance. By way of illustration, during one phase of a conflict a CoG may be a country's logistics hubs, while at another phase it could well become their power grid, information systems, or ethnic/cultural differences. One could argue that in the US Indian Wars two vital CoGs were the buffalo for the Plains Indians and a variety of tribal differences among the Apache. Two different "theaters of war," if you will, with two different CoGs, but the same overall campaign. There were others within each conflict, including tribal differences among the various Plains Indians (the different relationships with the Whites held by the Sioux peoples as compared to the Crow, for example), showing that there can in fact be multiple CoGs within a single conflict, and that each in turn can be examined and targeted. Wise commanders understand this, while others look for the lockstep answer.

[RTK]

What if we defined COGs as areas of influence, either physical or theoretical, the control of which by either adversarial party places the dominating organization in a position of tactical, operational, or strategic advantage, much like key terrain?

Any thoughts?

[Steve Blair]

What if we defined COGs as areas of influence, either physical or theoretical, the control of which by either adversarial party places the dominating organization in a position of tactical, operational, or strategic advantage, much like key terrain?

Any thoughts?

I think this comes closer to Clausewitz's original intention, although it should also be considered that CoGs can change over time. A CoG could also be an area of influence that is subject to disruption if not necessarily control.

One of the more interesting CoG discussions came out of Vietnam, and the contention that the North Vietnamese discovered that American public opinion was a vital CoG for their war aims. They never controlled it, but they did manage to disrupt and influence it in a way that helped them achieve victory.

I think the term "Center of Gravity" evokes for many a physical image, much like the axis something physically revolves around. This can be hard to overcome, and may lead to some of the confusion that has grown up around the concept.

On an interesting trivia note, I plugged Center of Gravity into Babel Fish. It translated into German there as Schwerpunkt, which then translated back into Emphasis. Nothing conclusive, but more something I found interesting.

[slapout9]

What if you defined a COG as a person,place,or thing that can exert power over the system?

[Steve Blair]

Perhaps influence might be a better term than power, since a CoG can have an indirect yet powerful influence over decisions. But I may also be quibbling over terms. It's more important to remember that a CoG is fluid, and not fixed.

[marct]

What if we defined COGs as areas of influence, either physical or theoretical, the control of which by either adversarial party places the dominating organization in a position of tactical, operational, or strategic advantage, much like key terrain?

Any thoughts?

I'd second Steve's comments on this. Maybe reformulate it as:

areas of influence, either physical, theoretical or symbolic, the relative influence of which by adversarial parties places the dominating organization in a position of tactical, operational, or strategic advantage

Marc

[RTK]

I'd second Steve's comments on this. Maybe reformulate it as:

areas of influence, either physical, theoretical or symbolic, the relative influence of which by adversarial parties places the dominating organization in a position of tactical, operational, or strategic advantage

Marc

I'll vote for this.

[marct]

You know, I just had a thought that it would be really interesting to compare the methodologies used to currently determine a CoG with Malinowski's work in Dynamics of Culture Change. At it's core, this particular piece is laying out a methodology designed to find a culture's CoG, although he doesn't use the term, and figure out plans for changing it.

Marc