Center of Gravity Construct

[Bill Moore]

slapout if you do a search on this site you'll find numerous debates on the COG, and I for one think the concept applied to irregular warfare as the author described it is deeply flawed. Our officers would be better served at CGSC if they spent their intellectual energy on understanding the multiple dynamics of an insurgency, instead of trying to dumb the problem down to one COG each at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of war.

I think the only point I agree on with the author is that the people are not a COG; however, I do not think the "cause" is a COG either. The author falls under the school that there is only one COG at the strategic level, one at the operational level, and one at the tactical level (this is a school of thought that somehow has become perceived to be fact by many CGSC students, which makes me wonder if they're getting educated or indoctrinated).

For argument's sake let's assume there is only one COG at each level.

The author's claim that the cause is the COG at the strategic level only applies to revolutionary type insurgencies. There are several causes for each insurgent group in Iraq, and there are several different insurgent groups. Exactly what cause is the COG? And if the COG's are diametrically opposed, doesn't addressing one inflame the other? I think this concept is of little value in most modern insurgencies.

If we use mirror analysis (assume the enemy is like us), you can almost make the COG theory work, but it doesn't account for Black Swans, which I owe some examples of later. The fact of the matter is that you can't dumb down complex problems to one COG. I also think it is a mistake to break down the levels of war to strategic, operational, and tactical in irregular warfare. The enemy is always fighting at the strategic level, they're not trying to win battles, but to win the war. I won't rant anymore, I think you know where I stand.