Taking Stock of EU Military Conflict Management
Over the last decade, the EU has established itself as a player in the international field of conflict management. Both its civilian missions and military operations have played a significant part in this development. This article takes a closer look at the EU’s military endeavours in conflict management. It presents a theoretically grounded definition and a corresponding set of criteria for success in military conflict management and evaluates the operations accordingly. The article provides a comprehensive review of all the EU military conflict management operations to date. The analysis is structured and focused around the criteria for success, which provides a more nuanced picture of the Union’s operational achievements throughout its first decade in military conflict management.
The politics and economics of regional integration in Africa: a comparative study of COMESA and SADC, 1980-2015
Thesis (Ph.D. (International Relations))--University of the Witwatersrand, Faculty of Humanities, 2016
Center of Gravity Analysis
MILITARY STUDENTS defining the concept of the center of gravity (COG) are like blind men describing an elephant. They know a definition exists, but they describe it according to their own experiences, and invariably someone will define COG as "the will of the people." The center of gravity is too important a concept to guess at. Joint Publication (JP) 5-0 (Draft 2), Doctrine for Joint Planning Operations, clearly states the critical role of COG analysis: "The most important task confronting campaign planners in this process is being able to identify friendly and adversary strategic centers of gravity; that is, the sources of strength, power, and resistance."1 The reason identifying centers of gravity is the most important task is because a "faulty analysis of friendly or adversary centers of gravity can have very serious consequences; specifically, the inability to accomplish the military objectives at an acceptable cost and the unconscionable expenditure of lives, time, and materiel in efforts that do not produce decisive strategic or operational results."2 There are two reasons why centers of gravity are so difficult to identify or define. First, the armed services suffered because in 1997, they agreed from years of conflicting definitions for center of gravity. Not until 1997 did they agree to the current joint definition.3 second, the services teach a COG theory without a practical framework to make the theory useful. Fixing the problem is easy; the joint community must agree on a simple definition and provide a framework. What are Centers of Gravity? Centers of gravity are sources of power. Joseph Strange of the U.S. Marine Corps War College defines centers of gravity as the "primary sources of moral or physical strength, power, and resistance."4 A center of gravity is the source of power that creates a force or a critical capability that allows an entity to act or accomplish a task or purpose. Ignore the joint definition; it only leads to confusion and debate. Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz states, "Out of the characteristics a certain center of gravity develops, the hub of all power and movement, on which everything depends. That is the point against which all our energies should be directed."5 However, Clausewitz's definition, according to U.S. Army and joint doctrine, misses the mark, so the joint community changed it by limiting sources of power to military systems and by defining centers of gravity as "those characteristics, capabilities, or localities from which a military force derives its freedom of action, physical strength, or will to fight."6 According to this definition, only military forces have centers of gravity; nations and other systems do not. Most planners and strategists ignore this limitation, but the definition is flawed, nonetheless. The joint definition also gives the impression that military forces are not centers of gravity themselves but only possess them. The current joint definition should replace "military force" with something like "system" or "entity." This change would broaden the definition to include nations or organizations. Next, the definition should be simplified by replacing "characteristics, capabilities, or localities" with simple words like "source," "agent," or "things." Next, we should drop terms like "freedom of action," "physical strength," or "will to fight" and replace them with the plainer "ability to act." We should drop "physical strength" and "will to fight" entirely because they are prerequisites for freedom of action. Without "will" or "strength," one cannot act, and the ability to act is a definition of power.7 The simplified joint definition of center of gravity then becomes "a system's source of power to act." Requirements and Vulnerabilities Once having defined "center of gravity," we next need to build a framework for understanding and identifying it. Essential to understanding the center of gravity is understanding "critical capabilities," "critical requirements," and "critical vulnerabilities. …