Center of gravity (military): Difference between revisions
Reverted to revision 589661319 by ClueBot NG: Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. The extensive addition is sourced to a single author (who happens to be the editor who added the material), and so may not reflect general consensus on the matter. ([[WP:TW... |
|||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
For example, according to US Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24, the center of gravity in a counterinsurgency is the protection of the population that hosts it.<ref>[http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf US Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24], p. 3-13 (page 69 of the PDF) [http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ FAS Intelligence Resource Program].</ref> |
For example, according to US Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24, the center of gravity in a counterinsurgency is the protection of the population that hosts it.<ref>[http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf US Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24], p. 3-13 (page 69 of the PDF) [http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ FAS Intelligence Resource Program].</ref> |
||
In modern military theory the Center of Gravity (CoG) is the very heart of operational planning because their destruction or protection is the key to attaining the objective. According to U.S. Joint Military Doctrine, “The essence of operational art[conceptual military planning] lies in determining how to allocate available friendly resources against an adversary’s CoGs to achieve friendly strategic and operational objectives.<ref> JP 5-0, 2006 , Pg. IV-18</ref> Accordingly, military theory and doctrine places significant value on the center of gravity. One of the most important tasks confronting the JFC’s [Joint Force Commander’s] staff in operational design is the identification of friendly and adversary CoGs. The U.S.military’s Joint Publication 5-0 goes on to state that, “This process cannot be taken lightly, since a faulty conclusion resulting from a poor or hasty analysis can have very serious consequences, such as the inability to achieve strategic and operational objectives at an acceptable cost”.<ref>JP 5-0, 2011, Pg. III-22</ref> The application of operational art, the development of an operational approach [a solution to an operational problem], the identification of lines of operation and effort, decisive points, and objectives all depend on the correct identification of friendly and adversary centers of gravity. |
|||
While U.S. military doctrine is clear on the center of gravity’s value, it is less clear on what a center of gravity is. Most definitions include some phrasing such as, “a source of moral or physical strength, power and resistance”, or the source “that provides freedom of action or will to act.”<ref>JP 5-0, 2011, Pg. III-22</ref> Recognizing that these definitions are vague, U.S. military doctrine attempts to achieve clarity by providing descriptions of what a center of gravity might be. For example, a friendly or adversary CoG could be a military force, an alliance, political or military leaders, a set of critical capabilities or functions, or national will. A criticism is that these definitions and examples lack clarity, are imprecise, have no basis in logic and are not testable. Thus they are overly inclusive and just about anything can be argued to be a center of gravity if it is a source of power. This leads to a situation where the final determinant is persistence of the argument, not precision of the definition. |
|||
To fix the definitional problem Colonel Dale Eikmeier (U.S. Army retired) recommend planners think critically and view the center of gravity as something that is the primary entity that possesses the inherent capability (power) to achieve the objective. He argues this thinking still fits the doctrinal definitions; however it has the advantage of directly linking the center of gravity to the objective, while excluding extraneous factors that the doctrinal definitions could include. Think of the CoG as the primary “source of strength, power and resistance” that can achieve the objective. By including the limiting factor of “primary” and linking strength or power to the ability to achieve an objective, one can be more precise in their CoG selection. |
|||
Testable. The logic in the recommended definition above provides for a validation method called the Supported and Supporting (Doer and Used) test. |
|||
Supported Test |
|||
• Only the center of gravity is inherently capable of achieving the purpose or objective. |
|||
• If something executes the primary action(s) (capability) that achieves the objective, it is the center of gravity. |
|||
• The center of gravity executes the action and uses or consumes resources to accomplish it. |
|||
Supporting Test |
|||
• If something is used or consumed to execute the primary action (capability), it is a requirement. |
|||
• If something contributes to, but does not actually perform the action, it is a requirement, not a center of gravity. |
|||
Center of Gravity Terminology: Critical Factors. |
|||
To better understand the CoG, concept you must understand center of gravity terminology often referred to as “critical factors”. These terms form a general framework for understanding and interpreting Centers of Gravity and are the creation of Dr. Joe Strange of the Marine Corps War College and were first described in his book, ''Perspectives on Warfighting''.<ref>Dr. Joe Strange. Perspectives on Warfighting Number Four Second Edition , Centers of Gravity & Critical Vulnerabilities, (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps Association, 1996)</ref> The importance of understanding these terms cannot be overstated. They are essential to identifying Centers of Gravity and their enablers which in turn are critical for the determination of lines of operation, decisive points and objectives. |
|||
Critical Capability (CC): Primary abilities which merits a center of gravity to be identified as such in the context of a given scenario, situation or mission. Critical capabilities are primary abilities (verbs) essential to the accomplishment of the objective which merits a Center of Gravity to be identified as such. It is what must be done. The center of gravity is the “doer” that possesses that critical capability. |
|||
Critical Requirements (CR): Essential conditions, resources and means for a critical capability to be fully operative. [Colonel Eikmeier would restate it as, Essential conditions, resources and means the CoG requires to perform the critical capability.] Conditions, resources and means are nouns; they are the things that a CoG requires to perform the critical capability. If the critical requirement is absent or deficient the CoG loses its ability to perform the critical capability. Attacking critical requirements become an indirect approach to neutralizing a CoG. |
|||
Critical Vulnerabilities (CV): Critical requirements or components thereof which are deficient or vulnerable to neutralization, interdiction or attack in a manner achieving decisive results. Critical vulnerabilities are a sub-set of critical requirements. They can be the requirement itself or part of a requirement. For example, a single point of failure in a system is a critical vulnerability. A common mistake planners make is to list vulnerabilities that have no relationship whatsoever with critical requirements. This is a mistake that can lead to wasted effort going after irrelevant vulnerabilities. Keep in mind there must be a link between a critical vulnerability and a critical requirement. Vulnerability is determined by the adversary’s capability to adversely affect the requirement. If there is no capability there is no vulnerability. |
|||
Identifying a Center of Gravity. |
|||
Current U.S. military doctrine suggests planners use a holistic system of systems analysis to identify centers of gravity. Commanders and staffs rely on an understanding of sufficient breadth and depth of enemy systems, the operational environment, and the interrelationships among the systems to permit them to understand how actors in the environment ultimately derive their physical strength, or what they use as their primary entity with the capability to achieve their objective. Armed with this understanding, commanders and staffs attempt to identify a CoG. Colonel Eikmeier argues this doctrinal method alone is usually insufficient; however the strategic framework for center of gravity analysis provides a more precise method and helps eliminate ambiguity. |
|||
This method of CoG identification avoids the complexity and ambiguity of the system of systems approach by combining a systems perspective with the strategic framework to answer three basic questions about the opposing and friendly systems. |
|||
• First, what is the end state or goal that we or our adversary want to achieve? |
|||
• Second, how (ways) can the end state be achieved? |
|||
• Lastly, what are the resources or means required to execute the way that achieves the end state? It is important that planners devote sufficient study to these simple but critical questions. Answering these questions is part of the Operational design, and mission analysis processes and is supported by the intelligence estimates that help provide understanding. |
|||
Center of Gravity Identification Steps |
|||
• The first step is to identify the friendly or adversary end state or goal. |
|||
• Second, list the ways with an effort to identify the Primary way that achieves the end state. It is also useful to think of the way as an action or verb because this will identify the critical capability required to achieve the end state. |
|||
• Third, list the resources or means required to execute and support the chosen way or critical capability. This is generally a list of things or nouns, although it may include some actions. |
|||
• The last step is to select from the list of means that entity that inherently possesses the critical capability to execute the chosen way. That entity is the center of gravity, all others are just requirements. |
|||
Note that the key step in this process is identifying the critical capability that achieves the goal. Identification of the critical capability occurs before identifying the CoG. Identification of the CoG is the last step which is different from what many doctrinal or school methods advocate. Another way to put this is to ask what do I need to do to reach my objective, and what can do it? We can then validate our selection by using the does or uses test that helps separate the CoG from what are merely requirements. |
|||
Validation: Supported or Supporting (Does or Uses). |
|||
U.S. Joint doctrine’s CoG validation method is to use a war game to determine if the defeat, destruction or weakening of the CoG candidate causes the adversary to change courses of action or objectives.<ref>JP 5-0, pp. III-24</ref> If it changes, according to doctrine, you validated the CoG selection. However, what this actually validates is that the candidate is merely a critical node in the system. The “Supported or Supporting” test is a technique that many find useful when defending or articulating the selection of a CoG. The purpose of the test is to verify the selection of a center of gravity and to identify the critical requirements (nodes). Here is an example. Our system is a railroad. The end state is to produce a profit for the railroad by transporting passengers and freight. The way or critical capability is to transport freight and passengers from point A to point B. To transport is the verb or critical capability. Means and resources required include: tracks, fuel, freight and passenger cars, operators and support staff, and locomotives. |
|||
We now ask, from the list of means, “what has the inherent capability to transport freight and passengers?” Tracks? No. Tracks do nothing by themselves other than support and guide the train. They are used by the train. Fuel? No. Fuel does not move anything, it is used or consumed by the locomotive. Cars? No. They hold freight and passengers but do not transport them. Cars are used by the locomotive to move them. Operators and staff? No. They are critical but do not have the inherent capability to transport freight and passengers by themselves. Locomotive? Yes. The locomotive is the doer, it has the inherent capability to transport. But it cannot do so without the other means, such as fuel, and operators. Therefore the other means are identified as critical requirements that the center of gravity requires to function. From an adversary’s perspective look at the critical requirements and identify any vulnerabilities. |
|||
Having identified a center of gravity and its relationship to other means helps identify both the CoG and its critical requirements and provide planners better understanding of what to protect and attack either directly or indirectly.<ref>Dale C Eikmeier, Military Review, “A Logical Method for Center of Gravity Analysis”, September-October. 2007: Pg. 64 </ref> |
|||
The Objective and the Center of Gravity. |
|||
The CoG is always linked to the objective but this relationship can be confusing. To clarify, the CoG is what you need to attack (adversary) or protect (friendly) either directly or indirectly in order to achieve your assigned objective. How you are going to attack, or defend that CoG determines the objectives you assign to subordinates. The linkage is that objectives or tasks are derived from an analysis of the CoG and its critical factors. Additionally if the objective or end state changes, the center of gravity should also be adjusted. The reverse is also true, if the center of gravity changes the objective should also change. |
|||
CC-CoG-CR-CV Construct. |
|||
This is just another way of showing the relationship between the CoG and its critical factors. The CoG and critical factors should logically follow the same hierarchy as the ends, ways and means relationship. Recalling the ends, ways and means method described for determining the CoG, you identify the goal, then the way or ways (verbs) to achieve the goal which is then your critical capability. From the list of means available, determine what has the inherent ability to perform the critical capability, this is your CoG. The other means may be critical requirements, some of which are vulnerable. This construct reinforces a logical relationship and the importance of asking what actions must take place to accomplish the objective and then what can perform the actions. It also illustrates the relationship between the CoG and the objective. |
|||
Some doctrinal references and educational material will have a CoG-CC-CR-CV construct.<ref>JP 5-0, 2011, Pg. III-25.US Army War College CAMPAIGN PLANNING HANDBOOK AY 11, Pg. 60</ref> Critics argue that this is unfortunate in that it implies you identify the CoG first, and then ask what are its capabilities and requirements. This reinforces a guessing methodology of CoG analysis and delinks the CoG from what is needed to achieve the objective. Commanders and planners will be better served by the logic of a CC-CoG-CR-CV construct. |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
Revision as of 16:52, 13 January 2014
Template:Globalize/US The center of gravity (CoG) is a concept developed by Carl Von Clausewitz, a Prussian military theorist, in his work On War.[1]
United States Department of Defense
The definition of a CoG is "the source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act."[2] Thus, the center of gravity is usually seen as the "source of strength".
United States Army
The United States Army tends to look for a single center of gravity, normally in the principal capability that stands in the way of the accomplishment of its own mission. In short, the army considers a "friendly" CoG as that element—a characteristic, capability, or locality—that enables one's own or allied forces to accomplish their objectives. Conversely, an opponent's CoG is that element that prevents friendly forces from accomplishing their objectives.
For example, according to US Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24, the center of gravity in a counterinsurgency is the protection of the population that hosts it.[3]
In modern military theory the Center of Gravity (CoG) is the very heart of operational planning because their destruction or protection is the key to attaining the objective. According to U.S. Joint Military Doctrine, “The essence of operational art[conceptual military planning] lies in determining how to allocate available friendly resources against an adversary’s CoGs to achieve friendly strategic and operational objectives.[4] Accordingly, military theory and doctrine places significant value on the center of gravity. One of the most important tasks confronting the JFC’s [Joint Force Commander’s] staff in operational design is the identification of friendly and adversary CoGs. The U.S.military’s Joint Publication 5-0 goes on to state that, “This process cannot be taken lightly, since a faulty conclusion resulting from a poor or hasty analysis can have very serious consequences, such as the inability to achieve strategic and operational objectives at an acceptable cost”.[5] The application of operational art, the development of an operational approach [a solution to an operational problem], the identification of lines of operation and effort, decisive points, and objectives all depend on the correct identification of friendly and adversary centers of gravity.
While U.S. military doctrine is clear on the center of gravity’s value, it is less clear on what a center of gravity is. Most definitions include some phrasing such as, “a source of moral or physical strength, power and resistance”, or the source “that provides freedom of action or will to act.”[6] Recognizing that these definitions are vague, U.S. military doctrine attempts to achieve clarity by providing descriptions of what a center of gravity might be. For example, a friendly or adversary CoG could be a military force, an alliance, political or military leaders, a set of critical capabilities or functions, or national will. A criticism is that these definitions and examples lack clarity, are imprecise, have no basis in logic and are not testable. Thus they are overly inclusive and just about anything can be argued to be a center of gravity if it is a source of power. This leads to a situation where the final determinant is persistence of the argument, not precision of the definition.
To fix the definitional problem Colonel Dale Eikmeier (U.S. Army retired) recommend planners think critically and view the center of gravity as something that is the primary entity that possesses the inherent capability (power) to achieve the objective. He argues this thinking still fits the doctrinal definitions; however it has the advantage of directly linking the center of gravity to the objective, while excluding extraneous factors that the doctrinal definitions could include. Think of the CoG as the primary “source of strength, power and resistance” that can achieve the objective. By including the limiting factor of “primary” and linking strength or power to the ability to achieve an objective, one can be more precise in their CoG selection.
Testable. The logic in the recommended definition above provides for a validation method called the Supported and Supporting (Doer and Used) test.
Supported Test • Only the center of gravity is inherently capable of achieving the purpose or objective. • If something executes the primary action(s) (capability) that achieves the objective, it is the center of gravity. • The center of gravity executes the action and uses or consumes resources to accomplish it. Supporting Test • If something is used or consumed to execute the primary action (capability), it is a requirement. • If something contributes to, but does not actually perform the action, it is a requirement, not a center of gravity.
Center of Gravity Terminology: Critical Factors.
To better understand the CoG, concept you must understand center of gravity terminology often referred to as “critical factors”. These terms form a general framework for understanding and interpreting Centers of Gravity and are the creation of Dr. Joe Strange of the Marine Corps War College and were first described in his book, Perspectives on Warfighting.[7] The importance of understanding these terms cannot be overstated. They are essential to identifying Centers of Gravity and their enablers which in turn are critical for the determination of lines of operation, decisive points and objectives.
Critical Capability (CC): Primary abilities which merits a center of gravity to be identified as such in the context of a given scenario, situation or mission. Critical capabilities are primary abilities (verbs) essential to the accomplishment of the objective which merits a Center of Gravity to be identified as such. It is what must be done. The center of gravity is the “doer” that possesses that critical capability.
Critical Requirements (CR): Essential conditions, resources and means for a critical capability to be fully operative. [Colonel Eikmeier would restate it as, Essential conditions, resources and means the CoG requires to perform the critical capability.] Conditions, resources and means are nouns; they are the things that a CoG requires to perform the critical capability. If the critical requirement is absent or deficient the CoG loses its ability to perform the critical capability. Attacking critical requirements become an indirect approach to neutralizing a CoG.
Critical Vulnerabilities (CV): Critical requirements or components thereof which are deficient or vulnerable to neutralization, interdiction or attack in a manner achieving decisive results. Critical vulnerabilities are a sub-set of critical requirements. They can be the requirement itself or part of a requirement. For example, a single point of failure in a system is a critical vulnerability. A common mistake planners make is to list vulnerabilities that have no relationship whatsoever with critical requirements. This is a mistake that can lead to wasted effort going after irrelevant vulnerabilities. Keep in mind there must be a link between a critical vulnerability and a critical requirement. Vulnerability is determined by the adversary’s capability to adversely affect the requirement. If there is no capability there is no vulnerability.
Identifying a Center of Gravity. Current U.S. military doctrine suggests planners use a holistic system of systems analysis to identify centers of gravity. Commanders and staffs rely on an understanding of sufficient breadth and depth of enemy systems, the operational environment, and the interrelationships among the systems to permit them to understand how actors in the environment ultimately derive their physical strength, or what they use as their primary entity with the capability to achieve their objective. Armed with this understanding, commanders and staffs attempt to identify a CoG. Colonel Eikmeier argues this doctrinal method alone is usually insufficient; however the strategic framework for center of gravity analysis provides a more precise method and helps eliminate ambiguity.
This method of CoG identification avoids the complexity and ambiguity of the system of systems approach by combining a systems perspective with the strategic framework to answer three basic questions about the opposing and friendly systems.
• First, what is the end state or goal that we or our adversary want to achieve? • Second, how (ways) can the end state be achieved? • Lastly, what are the resources or means required to execute the way that achieves the end state? It is important that planners devote sufficient study to these simple but critical questions. Answering these questions is part of the Operational design, and mission analysis processes and is supported by the intelligence estimates that help provide understanding.
Center of Gravity Identification Steps • The first step is to identify the friendly or adversary end state or goal. • Second, list the ways with an effort to identify the Primary way that achieves the end state. It is also useful to think of the way as an action or verb because this will identify the critical capability required to achieve the end state. • Third, list the resources or means required to execute and support the chosen way or critical capability. This is generally a list of things or nouns, although it may include some actions. • The last step is to select from the list of means that entity that inherently possesses the critical capability to execute the chosen way. That entity is the center of gravity, all others are just requirements.
Note that the key step in this process is identifying the critical capability that achieves the goal. Identification of the critical capability occurs before identifying the CoG. Identification of the CoG is the last step which is different from what many doctrinal or school methods advocate. Another way to put this is to ask what do I need to do to reach my objective, and what can do it? We can then validate our selection by using the does or uses test that helps separate the CoG from what are merely requirements.
Validation: Supported or Supporting (Does or Uses). U.S. Joint doctrine’s CoG validation method is to use a war game to determine if the defeat, destruction or weakening of the CoG candidate causes the adversary to change courses of action or objectives.[8] If it changes, according to doctrine, you validated the CoG selection. However, what this actually validates is that the candidate is merely a critical node in the system. The “Supported or Supporting” test is a technique that many find useful when defending or articulating the selection of a CoG. The purpose of the test is to verify the selection of a center of gravity and to identify the critical requirements (nodes). Here is an example. Our system is a railroad. The end state is to produce a profit for the railroad by transporting passengers and freight. The way or critical capability is to transport freight and passengers from point A to point B. To transport is the verb or critical capability. Means and resources required include: tracks, fuel, freight and passenger cars, operators and support staff, and locomotives.
We now ask, from the list of means, “what has the inherent capability to transport freight and passengers?” Tracks? No. Tracks do nothing by themselves other than support and guide the train. They are used by the train. Fuel? No. Fuel does not move anything, it is used or consumed by the locomotive. Cars? No. They hold freight and passengers but do not transport them. Cars are used by the locomotive to move them. Operators and staff? No. They are critical but do not have the inherent capability to transport freight and passengers by themselves. Locomotive? Yes. The locomotive is the doer, it has the inherent capability to transport. But it cannot do so without the other means, such as fuel, and operators. Therefore the other means are identified as critical requirements that the center of gravity requires to function. From an adversary’s perspective look at the critical requirements and identify any vulnerabilities.
Having identified a center of gravity and its relationship to other means helps identify both the CoG and its critical requirements and provide planners better understanding of what to protect and attack either directly or indirectly.[9]
The Objective and the Center of Gravity.
The CoG is always linked to the objective but this relationship can be confusing. To clarify, the CoG is what you need to attack (adversary) or protect (friendly) either directly or indirectly in order to achieve your assigned objective. How you are going to attack, or defend that CoG determines the objectives you assign to subordinates. The linkage is that objectives or tasks are derived from an analysis of the CoG and its critical factors. Additionally if the objective or end state changes, the center of gravity should also be adjusted. The reverse is also true, if the center of gravity changes the objective should also change.
CC-CoG-CR-CV Construct. This is just another way of showing the relationship between the CoG and its critical factors. The CoG and critical factors should logically follow the same hierarchy as the ends, ways and means relationship. Recalling the ends, ways and means method described for determining the CoG, you identify the goal, then the way or ways (verbs) to achieve the goal which is then your critical capability. From the list of means available, determine what has the inherent ability to perform the critical capability, this is your CoG. The other means may be critical requirements, some of which are vulnerable. This construct reinforces a logical relationship and the importance of asking what actions must take place to accomplish the objective and then what can perform the actions. It also illustrates the relationship between the CoG and the objective.
Some doctrinal references and educational material will have a CoG-CC-CR-CV construct.[10] Critics argue that this is unfortunate in that it implies you identify the CoG first, and then ask what are its capabilities and requirements. This reinforces a guessing methodology of CoG analysis and delinks the CoG from what is needed to achieve the objective. Commanders and planners will be better served by the logic of a CC-CoG-CR-CV construct.
References
- ^ General Carl Von Clausewitz (2009). On War: The Complete Edition. Wildside Press LLC. pp. 144, 151, 253, 331–4, 413–4, 430–1, 437, 444, . ISBN 978-1-4344-0496-1.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) - ^ DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. Joint Publication 1-02. 2008.
- ^ US Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24, p. 3-13 (page 69 of the PDF) FAS Intelligence Resource Program.
- ^ JP 5-0, 2006 , Pg. IV-18
- ^ JP 5-0, 2011, Pg. III-22
- ^ JP 5-0, 2011, Pg. III-22
- ^ Dr. Joe Strange. Perspectives on Warfighting Number Four Second Edition , Centers of Gravity & Critical Vulnerabilities, (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps Association, 1996)
- ^ JP 5-0, pp. III-24
- ^ Dale C Eikmeier, Military Review, “A Logical Method for Center of Gravity Analysis”, September-October. 2007: Pg. 64
- ^ JP 5-0, 2011, Pg. III-25.US Army War College CAMPAIGN PLANNING HANDBOOK AY 11, Pg. 60
- Echevarria, Antulio J., II (2003). Clausewitz's Center of Gravity: It's Not What We Thought. Naval War College Press.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
External links
- From Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College: Clausewitz's Center of Gravity: Changing Our Warfighting Doctrine--Again!
- Reining in” the Center of Gravity Concept
- The Relevance of Carl Von Clausewitz in Operation Iraqi Freedom
- JP 1-02, US DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms