Center of gravity (military)

Center of gravity (COG) is a military term that refers to the source of strength or balance for a military force. Centers of gravity exist for all belligerents and at all operational levels of war. The concept was first developed by Carl von Clausewitz, a Prussian military theorist, in his work On War^[1].

United States

The United States Department of Defense defines a COG as "the source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act"^[2]. There are twelve qualities of COGs the Joint Chiefs of Staff have doctrinally recognized^[3]^[4]:

Exists at each level of warfare
Mostly physical at operational and tactical levels
Is a source of leverage
Allows or enhances freedom of action
May be where the enemy’s force is most densely concentrated
Can endanger one’s own COGs
May be transitory in nature
Linked to objective(s)
Dependent upon adversarial relationship
Can shift over time or between phases
Often depends on factors of time and space
Contains many intangible elements at strategic level

The COG is the root enabler of the enemy's ability to interfere with friendly forces' mission, and vice versa. However, the various United States Armed Forces Service branches interpret this concept in different manners^[5]^[6]. For example, the United States Army primarily recognizes the COG as the single characteristic, capability, or locality that constitutes the enemy's COG, while simultaneously defending its own. Conversely, a counter-insurgency's COG may be defined as the entire host population, an external nation's support, or a core group of leaders/believers^[7]^[8].

Center of Gravity Analysis

Most modern systems of COG of analysis rely on the Joseph Strange's assessment framework of critical capabilities, critical requirements, and critical vulnerabilities^[4]. Critical capabilities are the primary abilities essential to the accomplishment of the mission. Critical requirements are essential conditions, resources, and means the COG requires to employ the critical capability. Critical vulnerabilities are aspects of critical requirements vulnerable to attack. The National Defense University (NDU) and Joint Forces Quarterly (JFQ) discuss three approaches to assessment of these critical factors^[9]:

Eikmeier method^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]

Godzilla method^[14]

Critical Factors Analysis (CFA)^[3]

Both the Eikmeier and Godzilla methods provide testable criteria for measuring and assessing various factors in the analysis. Meanwhile, CFA uses a subjective system of "means, ways, and ends" to assess critical capabilities, critical requirements, and critical vulnerabilities.

Eikmeier Method

Identify the organization’s desired ends or objectives.
Identify the possible “ways” or actions that can achieve the desired ends. Select the way(s) that the evidence suggests the organization is most likely to use. Remember: Ways are actions and should be expressed as verbs. Then select the most elemental or essential action—that selection is the critical capability. Ways = critical capabilities.
List the organization’s means available or needed to execute the way/critical capability.
Select the entity (noun) from the list of means that inherently possesses the critical capability to achieve the end. This selection is the center of gravity. It is the doer of the action that achieves the ends.
From the remaining items on the means list, select those that are critical for execution of the critical capability. These are the critical requirements.
Complete the process by identifying those critical requirements vulnerable to adversary actions.

References

^ Clausewitz, Carl Von (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.
^ Joint Chiefs of Staff (2017-03-01). Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Joint Chiefs of Staff. p. 33. Retrieved 2023-09-01. The source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^ ^a ^b Joint Chiefs of Staff (2020-12-01). "Chapter IV: Operational Design". Joint Publication 5-0: Joint Planning (PDF) (2020 ed.). Washington, D.C.: Joint Chiefs of Staff. pp. IV-23 – IV-27. Critical factors analysis is a framework to assist in analyzing and identifying a COG and to aid operational planning against threat networks within the OE, including insurgent, resistance, terrorist, and criminal organizations that operate in the human dimension of complex OEs. During critical factor analysis, planners evaluate the operational design elements and identify those considered crucial for mission accomplishment. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
^ ^a ^b Strange, Joseph L. (1996). Centers Of Gravity & Critical Vulnerabilities: Building On The Clausewitzian Foundation So That We Can All Speak The Same Language (PDF). 4 (2nd ed.). Quantico,VA: Marine Corps University. pp. ix–xvi, 43. We should as a minimum return to the Clausewitzian meaning of centers of gravity as moral and physical sources of strength, while simultaneously retaining the concept of "critical vulnerabilities" as critical weaknesses as explained in USMC FMFM 1 Warfighting, without of course the infamous footnote 28. Beyond that, we should also incorporate into Joint/Service doctrine two new conceptual terms - "critical capabilities" (CCs) and "critical requirements" (CRs) - which bridge the gap and explain the relationship between centers of gravity and critical vulnerabilities.
^ Strange, Joseph L.; Iron, Richard (October 2004). "Center of Gravity: What Clausewitz Really Meant" (PDF). Joint Force Quarterly (35). Washington, D.C.: Institute for National Strategic Studies: 20–27. Retrieved 2023-09-01 – via National Defense University. The discussion of centers of gravity in book eight [of On War by Carl von Clausewitz] is much less precise and is the source of misunderstanding for two reasons. First, the Howard and Paret translation of On War, the most commonly used English edition, may have confused some aspects of the original text. Moreover, some interpretations have taken the original out of context. Notwithstanding possible mistranslations, Howard and Paret are usually clear and consistent—provided the text is interpreted within the context of the relevant passages elsewhere.
^ Echevarria, Antulio J., II (2003-01-01). "Clausewitz's Center of Gravity: It's Not What We Thought" (PDF). Naval War College Review. Newport, Rhode Island: Naval War College. Over the last two decades, the U.S. military has struggled to understand the center of gravity concept as developed by Carl von Clausewitz and to find practical ways to apply it. In the process, however, each of the services—shaped as they are by different roles, histories, and traditions—has brought individual perspectives to Clausewitz's expression and redefined it in its respective image.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ United States Department of the Army (2014-05-13). "Chapter 7: Planning and Operational Considerations". FM 3-24 Insurgencies and Countering Insurgencies (PDF). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Army. p. 7-6. Retrieved 2023-09-01. In an insurgency, the population is not necessarily the center of gravity for an insurgent. A center of gravity could be external support from another country, it could be a group of core leadership or believers, or it could be a host of other factors or vital functions.
^ Army University (2011). Cox, Dan; Bruscino, Thomas (eds.). Population-Centric Counterinsurgency: A False Idol? (PDF). Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: US Army Combined Arms Center. pp. 93, 102, 120–121. Retrieved 2023-09-01. In essence, the population is the insurgent's center of gravity. Therefore, the counterinsurgent must drive a wedge between the insurgent and the population by establishing a level of security that is inhospitable to the insurgent's attempts to manipulate the population.
^ Smith, Daniel J.; Jeter, Kelley; Westgaard, Odin (July 2015). "Three Approaches to Center of Gravity Analysis: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (PDF). Joint Force Quarterly (78). Washington, D.C.: National Defense University: 129–135. Retrieved 2023-09-01. Speculation on proper COG determination has given rise to other COG methodologies, which have both questioned and challenged established doctrine for COG determination. Therefore, the objective of this article is to compare and contrast different COG determination methodologies to reveal strengths and weaknesses of each and ultimately to make recommendations for changes to joint doctrine.
^ Eikmeier (September 2007). "A Logical Method for Center-of-Gravity Analysis" (PDF). Military Review. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: United States Army Combined Arms Center: 62–66 – via Army University. Linking the strategic framework with the COG concept provides a heuristic that contributes to a focused and disciplined approach to COG determination. This linkage suggests that the ends, ways, and means framework is the start point for any COG analysis. Only by starting with the ends, ways, and means analysis first can critical capabilities (ways), critical requirements, and the center of gravity (means) be determined. It is the critical capability contained in the ways, and the means that the critical capability requires, that identify a center of gravity.
^ Eikmeier (October 2010). "Redefining the Center of Gravity" (PDF). Joint Forces Quarterly (59). Washington, D.C.: National Defense University: 156–158. Retrieved 2023-09-01. Since the current definition fails the clarity, logic, precision, and testable criteria, it must be replaced with one that does not. Only then will the endless debates cease and will planners be able to focus on campaign planning assisted by the COG concept rather than being distracted by it. To fix the definitional problem, I propose this definition: The center of gravity is the primary entity that possesses the inherent capability to achieve the objective.
^ Eikmeier (October 2016). "Let's Fix or Kill the Center of Gravity Concept" (PDF). Joint Forces Quarterly (83). Washington, D.C.: National Defense University: 109–115. Retrieved 2023-09-01. Joint doctrine is clear on the concept's purpose and utility. What doctrine needs is new definitions of the COG and its critical factors that end decades of debate that fuels the rejectionist argument. The criteria of clarity, logic, precision, and testability guide the proposed definitions. Additionally, the definitions should not only stand up to modern military theory but also be based on them. New definitions allow for improved COG identification and validation methods based on logic and objectivity, not metaphors or lists of characteristics. The modernized definition is as follows: The center of gravity is the primary entity that inherently possesses the critical capabilities to achieve the objective.
^ Eikmeier (May 2017). "The Center of Gravity: Still Relevant After All These Years?" (PDF). Military Review. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Army University. Retrieved 2023-09-01. The introduction of the 'ends, ways, and means' or 'Eikmeier method' in 2007 corrected this deficiency. The method is a logical systematic way to reduce guessing, subjectivity, and extraneous uncertainty.
^ Butler, James P. (January 2014). "Godzilla Methodology: Means for Determining Center of Gravity" (PDF). Joint Forces Quarterly (72). Washington, D.C.: National Defense University: 26–30. Retrieved 2023-09-01.

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

This military-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

[On_War-1] Clausewitz, Carl Von (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.

[DoD_Dictionary-2] Joint Chiefs of Staff (2017-03-01). Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Joint Chiefs of Staff. p. 33. Retrieved 2023-09-01. The source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[JP_5-0-3] Joint Chiefs of Staff (2020-12-01). "Chapter IV: Operational Design". Joint Publication 5-0: Joint Planning (PDF) (2020 ed.). Washington, D.C.: Joint Chiefs of Staff. pp. IV-23 – IV-27. Critical factors analysis is a framework to assist in analyzing and identifying a COG and to aid operational planning against threat networks within the OE, including insurgent, resistance, terrorist, and criminal organizations that operate in the human dimension of complex OEs. During critical factor analysis, planners evaluate the operational design elements and identify those considered crucial for mission accomplishment. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.

[Strange_Framework-4] Strange, Joseph L. (1996). Centers Of Gravity & Critical Vulnerabilities: Building On The Clausewitzian Foundation So That We Can All Speak The Same Language (PDF). 4 (2nd ed.). Quantico,VA: Marine Corps University. pp. ix–xvi, 43. We should as a minimum return to the Clausewitzian meaning of centers of gravity as moral and physical sources of strength, while simultaneously retaining the concept of "critical vulnerabilities" as critical weaknesses as explained in USMC FMFM 1 Warfighting, without of course the infamous footnote 28. Beyond that, we should also incorporate into Joint/Service doctrine two new conceptual terms - "critical capabilities" (CCs) and "critical requirements" (CRs) - which bridge the gap and explain the relationship between centers of gravity and critical vulnerabilities.

[What_Clausewitz_Really_Meant-5] Strange, Joseph L.; Iron, Richard (October 2004). "Center of Gravity: What Clausewitz Really Meant" (PDF). Joint Force Quarterly (35). Washington, D.C.: Institute for National Strategic Studies: 20–27. Retrieved 2023-09-01 – via National Defense University. The discussion of centers of gravity in book eight [of On War by Carl von Clausewitz] is much less precise and is the source of misunderstanding for two reasons. First, the Howard and Paret translation of On War, the most commonly used English edition, may have confused some aspects of the original text. Moreover, some interpretations have taken the original out of context. Notwithstanding possible mistranslations, Howard and Paret are usually clear and consistent—provided the text is interpreted within the context of the relevant passages elsewhere.

[Clausewitz's_Center_of_Gravity:_It's_Not_What_We_Thought-6] Echevarria, Antulio J., II (2003-01-01). "Clausewitz's Center of Gravity: It's Not What We Thought" (PDF). Naval War College Review. Newport, Rhode Island: Naval War College. Over the last two decades, the U.S. military has struggled to understand the center of gravity concept as developed by Carl von Clausewitz and to find practical ways to apply it. In the process, however, each of the services—shaped as they are by different roles, histories, and traditions—has brought individual perspectives to Clausewitz's expression and redefined it in its respective image.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[FM_3-24-7] United States Department of the Army (2014-05-13). "Chapter 7: Planning and Operational Considerations". FM 3-24 Insurgencies and Countering Insurgencies (PDF). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Army. p. 7-6. Retrieved 2023-09-01. In an insurgency, the population is not necessarily the center of gravity for an insurgent. A center of gravity could be external support from another country, it could be a group of core leadership or believers, or it could be a host of other factors or vital functions.

[Population-Centric_Counterinsurgency-8] Army University (2011). Cox, Dan; Bruscino, Thomas (eds.). Population-Centric Counterinsurgency: A False Idol? (PDF). Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: US Army Combined Arms Center. pp. 93, 102, 120–121. Retrieved 2023-09-01. In essence, the population is the insurgent's center of gravity. Therefore, the counterinsurgent must drive a wedge between the insurgent and the population by establishing a level of security that is inhospitable to the insurgent's attempts to manipulate the population.

[Three_Approaches_to_Center_of_Gravity_Analysis-9] Smith, Daniel J.; Jeter, Kelley; Westgaard, Odin (July 2015). "Three Approaches to Center of Gravity Analysis: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (PDF). Joint Force Quarterly (78). Washington, D.C.: National Defense University: 129–135. Retrieved 2023-09-01. Speculation on proper COG determination has given rise to other COG methodologies, which have both questioned and challenged established doctrine for COG determination. Therefore, the objective of this article is to compare and contrast different COG determination methodologies to reveal strengths and weaknesses of each and ultimately to make recommendations for changes to joint doctrine.

[A_Logical_Method_for_Center-of-Gravity_Analysis-10] Eikmeier (September 2007). "A Logical Method for Center-of-Gravity Analysis" (PDF). Military Review. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: United States Army Combined Arms Center: 62–66 – via Army University. Linking the strategic framework with the COG concept provides a heuristic that contributes to a focused and disciplined approach to COG determination. This linkage suggests that the ends, ways, and means framework is the start point for any COG analysis. Only by starting with the ends, ways, and means analysis first can critical capabilities (ways), critical requirements, and the center of gravity (means) be determined. It is the critical capability contained in the ways, and the means that the critical capability requires, that identify a center of gravity.

[Redefining_the_Center_of_Gravity-11] Eikmeier (October 2010). "Redefining the Center of Gravity" (PDF). Joint Forces Quarterly (59). Washington, D.C.: National Defense University: 156–158. Retrieved 2023-09-01. Since the current definition fails the clarity, logic, precision, and testable criteria, it must be replaced with one that does not. Only then will the endless debates cease and will planners be able to focus on campaign planning assisted by the COG concept rather than being distracted by it. To fix the definitional problem, I propose this definition: The center of gravity is the primary entity that possesses the inherent capability to achieve the objective.

[Let’s_Fix_or_Kill_the_Center_of_Gravity_Concept-12] Eikmeier (October 2016). "Let's Fix or Kill the Center of Gravity Concept" (PDF). Joint Forces Quarterly (83). Washington, D.C.: National Defense University: 109–115. Retrieved 2023-09-01. Joint doctrine is clear on the concept's purpose and utility. What doctrine needs is new definitions of the COG and its critical factors that end decades of debate that fuels the rejectionist argument. The criteria of clarity, logic, precision, and testability guide the proposed definitions. Additionally, the definitions should not only stand up to modern military theory but also be based on them. New definitions allow for improved COG identification and validation methods based on logic and objectivity, not metaphors or lists of characteristics. The modernized definition is as follows: The center of gravity is the primary entity that inherently possesses the critical capabilities to achieve the objective.

[The_Center_of_Gravity:_Still_Relevant_After_All_These_Years?-13] Eikmeier (May 2017). "The Center of Gravity: Still Relevant After All These Years?" (PDF). Military Review. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Army University. Retrieved 2023-09-01. The introduction of the 'ends, ways, and means' or 'Eikmeier method' in 2007 corrected this deficiency. The method is a logical systematic way to reduce guessing, subjectivity, and extraneous uncertainty.

[Godzilla_Methodology:_Means_for_Determining_Center_of_Gravity-14] Butler, James P. (January 2014). "Godzilla Methodology: Means for Determining Center of Gravity" (PDF). Joint Forces Quarterly (72). Washington, D.C.: National Defense University: 26–30. Retrieved 2023-09-01.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

United States

Center of Gravity Analysis

Eikmeier Method

See also

References

External links