Quote Originally Posted by HumanCOGRachel View Post
When working on counterinsurgency definition with the Pentagon, we were looking at various thought leaders in preparing 3.24.2 (December 2006 revision).
How and why did the definition change?
The idea with Human COG is to redefine the term to understanding the motivators and drivers of humans in the OE, and then understanding that those motivators (and human actors obviously) are what drive battlefield changes, whether of kinetic or non-kinetic effect.
The COG is something you strike. The JP3 definition is wrong, and less it explicitly makes that point or unless it wants to invent a new term.
What I think you are saying is the HumanCOG is the motivation that cause people to act. Correct?
Quote Originally Posted by HumanCOGRachel View Post
The targeted humans part simply meant as an identified group of persons, who range from non-involved to highly invested actors.
Does this mean, trying to understand what everyone wants?
Counterinsurgency assumes that insurgency involves political AND military struggles (two-pronged) -
So an insurgency is exactly the same as any other type of warfare.