Center of Gravity Analysis Guide: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Overview == | == Overview == | ||
The Center of Gravity (COG) is a pivotal concept in military theory and strategic planning, originating from Carl von Clausewitz's work. It represents the source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will. Proper identification and manipulation of the COG can lead to significant strategic advantages and can be decisive in military operations. | The Center of Gravity (COG) is a pivotal concept in military theory and strategic planning, originating from Carl von Clausewitz's work. It represents the source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will. Proper identification and manipulation of the COG can lead to significant strategic advantages and can be decisive in military operations. <ref>'''Carl von Clausewitz. ''On War.'' Edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.'''</ref> | ||
Understanding the COG helps commanders focus their efforts on targets that will | Understanding the COG helps commanders focus their efforts on targets that will greatly affect the adversary's ability to conduct operations while protecting their own COG. | ||
Joint Publication (JP) 1-02 defines COG as “those characteristics, capabilities, or sources of power from which a military force derives its freedom of action, physical strength, or will to fight.” <ref>U.S. Department of Defense. ''Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms.'' Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, last updated 2019. <nowiki>https://www.jcs.mil/Doctrine/DOD-Terminology-Program/</nowiki>.</ref> | |||
JP 3-0 defines COG as "the source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act.”<ref>U.S. Department of Defense. ''Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Campaigns and Operations.'' Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2022. <nowiki>https://www.jcs.mil/Doctrine/Joint-Doctrine-Pubs/3-0-Operations-Series/</nowiki>.</ref> | |||
== Objectives and Detailed Questions == | == Objectives and Detailed Questions == | ||
| Line 12: | Line 16: | ||
=== Identify the COG === | === Identify the COG === | ||
Accurately identifying the COG is critical for successful operational planning. This | Accurately identifying the COG is critical for successful operational planning. This thoroughly analyzes friendly forces, adversaries, and other relevant actors such as host nations.<ref>Joint Publication 5-0, ''Joint Planning'', U.S. Department of Defense, 1 December 2020.</ref> | ||
==== '''Friendly COG''': ==== | ==== '''Friendly COG''': ==== | ||
| Line 46: | Line 50: | ||
== Steps in COG Analysis == | == Steps in COG Analysis == | ||
COG analysis involves a systematic approach to identify and exploit or protect centers of gravity. | COG analysis involves a systematic approach to identify and exploit or protect centers of gravity. <ref>RAND Corporation. ''Vulnerability Assessment Method Pocket Guide: A Tool for Center of Gravity Analysis.'' Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2014. <nowiki>https://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TL129.html</nowiki>.</ref> | ||
<ref>U.S. Department of Defense. ''Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Campaigns and Operations.'' Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2022. <nowiki>https://www.jcs.mil/Doctrine/Joint-Doctrine-Pubs/3-0-Operations-Series/</nowiki>.</ref> | |||
<ref>Eikmeier, Dale C. “The Center of Gravity: Still Relevant After All These Years?” ''Military Review'', May 11, 2017. <nowiki>https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2017-Online-Exclusive-Articles/The-Center-of-Gravity/</nowiki>.</ref> | |||
<ref>Giles, Phillip Kevin, and Thomas Patrick Galvin. ''Determination, Analysis, and Application.'' Carlisle Barracks, PA: Center for Strategic Leadership, U.S. Army War College, January 31, 1996. <nowiki>https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA593948.pdf</nowiki>.</ref> | |||
=== 1. Define the Operational Environment === | === 1. Define the Operational Environment === | ||
Refer to the [[PMESII-PT|PMESII-PT]] (Political, Military, Economic, Social, Information, Infrastructure, Physical Environment, Time) framework to | Refer to the [[PMESII-PT|PMESII-PT]] (Political, Military, Economic, Social, Information, Infrastructure, Physical Environment, Time) framework to comprehensively understand the operational environment. | ||
'''Questions to consider:''' | '''Questions to consider:''' | ||
* What are the geographic, political, and societal characteristics | * What are the geographic, political, and societal characteristics affect potential COGs? | ||
* How do these elements advantage or disadvantage various actors? | * How do these elements advantage or disadvantage various actors? | ||
* What historical, cultural, and economic factors influence the conflict? | * What historical, cultural, and economic factors influence the conflict? | ||
| Line 64: | Line 71: | ||
* What are their primary sources of power? | * What are their primary sources of power? | ||
* How do these COGs support their strategic objectives? | * How do these COGs support their strategic objectives? | ||
* Are | * Are multiple COGs at different levels (strategic, operational, tactical)? | ||
=== 3. Identify Critical Capabilities === | === 3. Identify Critical Capabilities === | ||
| Line 126: | Line 133: | ||
==== Scoring System ==== | ==== Scoring System ==== | ||
When establishing a scoring system for Center of Gravity (COG) analysis or any operational planning process, selecting a system ensures consistency, clarity, and precision is essential. The scoring system chosen should align with the specific objectives of the analysis and be easily understood by all participants. It is crucial to define each criterion clearly so | When establishing a scoring system for Center of Gravity (COG) analysis or any operational planning process, selecting a system ensures consistency, clarity, and precision is essential. The scoring system chosen should align with the specific objectives of the analysis and be easily understood by all participants. It is crucial to define each criterion clearly so planners can interpret the scores uniformly. This will help ensure that lower or higher scores consistently reflect greater or lesser advantages, risks, or priorities. | ||
Two primary approaches to scoring are '''Traditional Scoring''' and '''Logarithmic Scoring'''. Each method has | Two primary approaches to scoring are '''Traditional Scoring''' and '''Logarithmic Scoring'''. Each method has strengths and should be selected based on the analysis's complexity and depth. | ||
===== Traditional Scoring ===== | ===== Traditional Scoring ===== | ||
| Line 141: | Line 148: | ||
'''Pros:''' | '''Pros:''' | ||
* Simple and easy to understand. | * Simple and easy to understand. | ||
* | * It is ideal for straightforward evaluations with limited complexity. | ||
'''Cons:''' | '''Cons:''' | ||
* Does not emphasize significant differences between higher values. | * Does not emphasize significant differences between higher values. | ||
* | * It may lack nuance for complex, multidimensional problems. | ||
===== Logarithmic Scoring ===== | ===== Logarithmic Scoring ===== | ||
| Line 161: | Line 168: | ||
'''Cons:''' | '''Cons:''' | ||
* | * It is more complex to implement and may require additional explanation for users. | ||
* | * It can be harder to interpret when applied to simpler problems. | ||
'''Calculating a Composite Score''' | '''Calculating a Composite Score''' | ||
| Line 171: | Line 178: | ||
* '''Interpretation''': Use the total score to rank vulnerabilities, prioritize mitigation efforts, or allocate resources more effectively. | * '''Interpretation''': Use the total score to rank vulnerabilities, prioritize mitigation efforts, or allocate resources more effectively. | ||
Example: If vulnerability A scores 30 and vulnerability B scores 18, | Example: If vulnerability A scores 30 and vulnerability B scores 18, vulnerability A should be addressed first due to its higher composite score. | ||
'''Best Practices for Scoring''' | '''Best Practices for Scoring''' | ||
| Line 255: | Line 262: | ||
* '''Continuous Assessment''': Regularly update COG analysis to reflect changes in the operational environment. | * '''Continuous Assessment''': Regularly update COG analysis to reflect changes in the operational environment. | ||
* '''Interdisciplinary Approach''': Incorporate insights from intelligence, logistics, cyber, and other relevant fields. | * '''Interdisciplinary Approach''': Incorporate insights from intelligence, logistics, cyber, and other relevant fields. | ||
* '''Operational Security''': Protect your | * '''Operational Security''': Protect your COG analysis from adversary intelligence efforts. | ||
* '''Commander's Guidance''': Align COG analysis with the commander's intent and operational objectives. | * '''Commander's Guidance''': Align COG analysis with the commander's intent and operational objectives. | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
[[Category:Military Planning]] | [[Category:Military Planning]] | ||