Center of Gravity Construct

[slapout9]

Ski, Ring #4 Population groups deals with just the subject you are talking about, how to effect groups with non-lethal means. Largely through what we are calling IO operations. Also Col. Warden was on TV when we were just talking invading Iraq when he made the suggestion that we use "Madison Avenue" to conduct IO operations because they would probably be better at it as far as figuring out an Islamic response.


[B]pvebber,[/B
1- I would offer that an insurgency is a prime example of creating a COG within a system. From their viewpoint the countries government would be an enemy system and they are creating an insurgency or COG within that system.


2-I agree with you about the terminology which is becoming more confusing than ever, targets are also persons,places,or things and so are COG's. When the new Joint Publication on an Effects Based approach came out they it made it more complicated by calling targets "Nodes" both have the same definition.



Also I just heard on the news that AQI has killed the main Sheik that was helping us in An bar province. That is a ring #1 Leadership target. Not a good day for our side.

[Ski]

I don't think IO amounts to a hill of beans for the most part. Trying to change other's people cultures is a Sysphian task and wars have been fought over much less.

I read some of the Checkmate stuff for a Master's degree paper I wrote a few weeks ago. I think the most successful part of that particular "EBO" was the fact that it played right to the USAF's founding myth - that it is a strategic bombing force. IIRC, the #5 ring was the enemy troop concentrations...so we ignored TACAIR, in the hope that the Iraqi people would get pissed off and rise against Saddam. Obviously, it didn't, and history would have shown that the strategic bombing campaigns almost always result in the people being bombed having more anger and resolve than the if they were left alone. Outside of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, and maybe Kosovo (there were other factors at play there), strategic bombing has never brought a country to submission, regime change, etc...

I remain skeptical of EBO in the physical realm of warfare, and I think (again, I realize my limitations with little in depth study of EBO) it would very hazardous to one's health if we tried to use it to change human behavior.


[QUOTE=slapout9;25815]Ski, Ring #4 Population groups deals with just the subject you are talking about, how to effect groups with non-lethal means. Largely through what we are calling IO operations. Also Col. Warden was on TV when we were just talking invading Iraq when he made the suggestion that we use "Madison Avenue" to conduct IO operations because they would probably be better at it as far as figuring out an Islamic response.

QUOTE]

[slapout9]

Ski I would agree with you about how IO operations are currently being conducted, but that doesn't mean we should not be learning how to use them. Are enemies are very good at it, and I think we could be if we work on it. This doesn't mean changing a culture but it dose mean changing the IO environment to allow us to achieve our objective.

EBO has nothing to do with bombing (I agree that the Air Force thinks that it does) EBO as it was first conceived was a process used to develop a strategy to win, this is the part that is forgotten and has been poorly applied in many ways especially as you point out when used by people with a bomber mentality.

I was part of how this process was used in Law Enforcement and although I can not talk about most of it(it was repeated in several cities across the US) I think it shows how flexible and adaptable the process is when it is used how it was meant to be used and not just as some type of bombing theory.


I am trying to get permission to post some things about the early Warden models of EBO which would help show the differance and how it has little to do with Startegic Bombing as it is most often associated.

[Old Eagle]

COGs always exist. Issue is defining them correctly. Haven't digested the new Military Review referenced on SWJ homepage, but it contains at least two articles on identifying COGs. I've heard Mark Ullrich's pitch before and it bears close examination.