Center of Gravity Construct

[Bill Moore]

Clausewitz’s center of gravity, then, is a “focal point,” neither a strength (or even a source of one) nor a weakness, per se. Second, CoGs are found only where sufficient connectivity exists among the various parts of the enemy to form an overarching system (or structure) that acts with a substantial degree of unity, like a physical body. Third, a center of gravity exerts a certain centripetal force that tends to hold an entire system or structure together; thus a blow at the center of gravity would throw an enemy off balance or even cause the entire system (or structure) to collapse. Fourth, using the concept necessitates viewing the enemy holistically.

The U.S. military’s various definitions lack entirely Clausewitz’s sense of “unity” or “connectivity.” By overlooking this essential prerequisite, the U.S. military assumes centers of gravity exist where none might—the enemy may not have sufficient connectivity between its parts to have a CoG. In that case the analysis does little more than focus on the most critical of the enemy’s capabilities.

[Jimbo]

Echevarria still makes my head hurt, as much as when I had him for a history class many, many moons ago. I think that the U.S. military has had a problem with understanding Clausewitz, especially the nuances. The theorist who has had the greatest impact on the U.S. military is Jomini. It plays to U.S. love of formulaic solutions. Sure, parts of Clausewitz have been used, but U.S. military doctrine is still driven by Jomini, more than Clausewitz.