6/4/2023 0 Comments Cogs 185 ucsd![]() ![]() His statement that “destruction would have the most decisive impact on the enemy’s or one’s own ability to accomplish a given military objective” ties COG directly to the objective and also specifies that a COG exists for both the enemy and oneself. While both of these definitions use language similar to the current joint definition, Vego’s in particular presents three components that are critical to practical application by planners. Joe Strange proposed defining COG as “primary sources of moral or physical strength, power and resistance.” 3 Milan Vego defined COG as:Ī source of massed strength-physical or moral-or a source of leverage, whose degradation, dislocation, neutralization, or destruction would have the most decisive impact on the enemy’s or one’s own ability to accomplish a given military objective tactical, operational, and strategic centers of gravity are differentiated each center of gravity is related to the corresponding military objective to be accomplished. Modern-day COG theorists have their own variations on the definition, which obviously had some influence on the current joint definition. While it is significant that Service and joint COG definitions now align, the definition itself is too generic to be of value to planners. Joint Publication (JP) 5-0, Joint Operation Planning, defines center of gravity as a “source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act.” 2 It was only a short time ago that each Service had its own definition of COG. 1 In other words, while the theory of COG is sound, it does not answer modern-day methodology questions.ĭiffering Definitions. For the many reasons recently presented by Dale Eikmeier, military planners need to be much less concerned with Clausewitz’s history and theory of COG than with the more critical value and application of contemporary COG methodology. While Clausewitz’s theory may provide some foundational legitimacy to the concept, it has little value in establishing detailed practical application of COG for planners, particularly at the operational level of war. military’s application of COG in current planning doctrine. Clausewitz’s theory is touted as the foundation for the U.S. This comes primarily from three factors: overreliance on Clausewitz’s COG theory, differing doctrinal definitions of COG-related terms, and varying joint and Service doctrinal COG methodologies. Some planners and many senior staff officers lack detailed knowledge of and confidence in the value and practical use of COG methodology. Air National Guard/Matt Hecht) Root of the Problem Servicemembers provide cover after tactical air insertion with Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter at Fort Dix, New Jersey, Ap(U.S. Application in certain scenarios may be complex, but the important aspect of COG methodology is that when properly employed, it is the foundation of and gives direction to COA development. This is not to assert that proper employment of COG methodology is always easy. When done correctly, COG planning methodology is the primary practical way to link an objective to a course of action (COA). However, the painstaking discussion of Clausewitz is done at the expense of missing the fact that the refined, modern-day view of COG is a critical concept for planners to understand and apply. They discuss how this theory is too complex to be used by U.S. Several of these dialogues present detailed contrarian views to the validity of Carl von Clausewitz’s much analyzed theory of COG (or Schwerpunkt, as presented in On War). Many recent discussions have tended to be ambivalent at best toward the value of the concept of COG. ![]() Naval War College.Ĭenter of gravity (COG) continues to be a popular topic in military journals, blogs, and lectures. Kornatz, USN (Ret.), is a Professor in the College of Operational and Strategic Leadership at the U.S. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |