HEADQUARTERS NATO RAPID DEPLOY- ABLE CORPS- TURKEY :
Reviewing the Concept of Center of Gravity www . hrf . tu . nato . int
By LTC Minchev Aleksandar ( TUR )
“
The term center of gravity means something to everyone , but not the same to anyone ”. John Saxman , 1992 .
The importance of center of gravity analysis in NATO joint planning is captured in AJP-01D “ Allied Joint Doctrine ” and AJP- 5 “ Allied Joint Doctrine for Operational Level Planning ” by the statement that : “ The essence of operational art lies in being able to produce the right combination of effects in time and space , and purpose to neutralize , weaken , defeat or destroy an enemy ’ s center of gravity … By disrupting or dislocating the enemy ’ s center of gravity ( CoG ), commanders ensure that all military efforts contribute to achieving the objective and end state whether that is tactical , operational or strategic ”.
Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive Interim V2.0 ( COPD ) also defines center of gravity as : “ A characteristic , capabilities or localities from which a nation , an alliance , a military force or other grouping derives its freedom of action , physical strength or will to fight .”
The current concept of a center of gravity helps military planners to define a relationship between ends ( strategic objectives ), ways ( operational concepts ), means ( available resources ) and risks ( likely costs ) in military activity . The construct also facilitates a course of action analysis that culminates in the development of a
22LAND POWER
concept of operations to use in the field . [ 6 ]
Yet despite its doctrinal eminence , the center of gravity , a phenomenon and concept drawn from Carl von Clausewitz ’ s book “ On War ”, remains controversial as a practical tool for operational planning and has become a subject of theoretical dispute amongst many military theorists . During the last thirty years and on and also with the rise of operational design in Western military doctrine , center of gravity analysis has become more but not less controversial . Indeed , the evolution of design has served to intensify the central question about the CoG : Can a nineteenth century approach to warfare be applied to largescale conventional military operations to embrace twenty-first century irregular conflicts with all their additional civilmilitary complexities ? [ 5 ]
This article is not an attempt to try to make the center of gravity ‘ clearer to everyone ’. Its aim is just to try to assist today ’ s planners to grasp how the theories on construct have evolved and to try to explore its present and future significance against a background of CoG theories drawn from the science of complex systems .
When the professional officer is confronted with the concept of CoG and the methods of its analysis , the great variety of theoretical approaches can cause a practical problem and the essential work of operational planning can be hindered because of this . Milan Vego states that ; despite of the importance , inadequate attention is paid to the construct . This is not favorable , because the result from the CoG analysis delivers the vital input mentioned earlier needed to produce the operational