Reviewing the Concept of Center of Gravity design and the decisive points tied to it .
In the international arena there are a number of modern theories that have had more impact than others in the military sphere and they all act on the highest level of research in reference to the levels described . They are without exception connected to the US armed forces and their doctrines which expand the international influence these theories have .
There are even recognized theories strands of the concept , called in some sources : the traditionalists , the complex systems advocates and the integrationists .
Traditionalists argue that the rise of systems theory in joint military doctrine risks confusing impetuous number of decisive points , nodes and links with identified CoG based on clearly stated objectives .
The complex systems advocates are recommending adoption of complex systems science to improve the practice of contemporary operational art by a process of “ learning in action ”.
Between these two strands stand the integrationists , who favor continuing of the evolutionary process while converting it to the complex realities using modern science achievements . [ 6 ]
Some of the well-known theoreticians on the concept are :
John Warden is known for his involvement in the air campaign during the first Gulf War in 1990-91 and for his theories on viewing the opposing force as a system described in a five-layer circle . He claims that CoG is useful in planning operations since it “ describes the point where the enemy is most vulnerable and the point where an attack will have the best chance of being decisive ”. The point that Warden makes is built upon the original theories of Clausewitz , even though he confuses to some extent the concept with vulnerabilities .
Robert Leonhard claims that the CoG is the enemy ’ s vulnerabilities and not his strengths . He makes a comparison to both a game of chess and amusingly to a personal battle with fire ants in Georgia . Leonhard identifies that in order to win you need to attack the vulnerabilities instead of the strengths , i . e . the king of chess and the queen of fire ants . Leonhard as well as Warden has a practical approach to the theories which serves the professional officer well .
Antulio Echevarria represents another branch in the theories on CoG and a more modern one where new types of wars are included in the analysis . He asserts that CoG is neither the strength , nor the source of strength and not a weakness . According to Echevarria , CoG is what holds the enemy ’ s force together . CoG is the “ focal point ” that holds the system together , maintains the cohesion , but only exists if there is a certain degree of connection . Echevarria has some inspiring theories that will improve the area of research and his contribution to the debate will hopefully
take it closer to an applicable consensus . [ 5 ]
Before leaving the international focus there are two additional main theories that help in surveying the research area . The theories of Milan Vego and Joseph Strange & Richard Iron claim that CoG in its essence belongs to the strengths in the system .
The effective Bulgarian doctrines and the guidelines given in COPD are for the time being emphasizing that CoGs are connected to strength , either the source of strength or the strength itself . This article does not strive to reevaluate this standpoint and therefore authors like Echevarria , Leonhard and Warden will not be mentioned any further . This article is instead recommending the theories of
Milan Vego and Joseph Strange & Richard Iron . There are a number of reasons why these theories are recommended , but the decisive factors are that they both view CoG as connected to strength and that they are frequently referred to in the curriculum of many NATO countries ’ War Colleges and some of their results are included in COPD .
This article now does not give a review of the two modern theories chosen according to the most similar systems design . Individually , the two chosen theories and their view on CoG , the different sub elements and the method for CoG analysis can be reviewed in other format , where the space is not that limited . Instead , this article barely touches them and points out just their few differences . If the reader ’ s interest in the construct is
grasped enough , he could study thoroughly any of the mentioned above authors ’ works in order to get deep into their theories .
The two theories and their methods of analysis emphasize that the process has to be done in an iterative manner where both opponents are analyzed parallel to each other . However , in order to identify CoGs and the different sub elements , the theories have one major difference .
Strange / Iron first identify the CoGs and then dissect them in order to find the Critical Requirements and the Critical Vulnerabilities . Vego , on the other hand , claims that the ultimate way is to approach the analysis from the other direction . Vego starts with determining ( see page 53 )
LAND POWER23