TARGET SELECTION: Reflections on Using the CARVER Model

Readers of our posts are generally familiar with the range of tactical and strategic actions/campaigns resistance activists and radical Communities might use in their work.

Between the options contained in, e.g., the Deep Green Resistance A Taxonomy of Action, and the approaches we discuss in our Leading Communities of Resistance course, you should have quite a range of strategic/tactical possibilities, AND a way to determine what options best fit your circumstances.

There is a complementary analysis you need to undertake, and that is choosing a TARGET for your initiative or campaign.

A convenient, well-known model for choosing a target is the CARVER model (Criticality, Accessibility, Recoverability, Vulnerability, Effect, Recognizability). This tool was developed by US Army Special Forces in Vietnam to select targets optimally, so resources could be efficiently used.

The model, in other words, is a logical way of looking at what action one might want to engage in, and to determine whether the target is possible given your resources.

A Note on Targets vis a vis Tactics.

Forgive me if you’ve heard this one before, but choosing a target (offensive or defensive) cannot be divorced from a consideration of tactics. 

To try to make this clear, let’s introduce a running example. Assume you’re part of the Rebel Alliance. (You are, though we aren’t allied as we should be, but that’s another conversation.) The Alliance may consider the Death Star a potential target (more in a moment). Probably a good choice. However, the decision to choose the Death Star has to be done in tandem with a consideration of available tactics – you probably, for example, wouldn’t choose to file a lawsuit against The Star [TM], or organize a Non-Violent Direct Action like a general strike of neighboring planets. 

We’re guessing the Alliance wants to destroy The Star, or disable it, as part of their larger strategic Plan. In that case, sabotage or an offensive is more appropriate. Now, the Alliance might have better lawyers than they do star fighters. In that case, The Star may still be a target, but the ‘calculations’ leading up to a potential target choice would likely provide a different result.

TARGETS  <—>  TACTICS

Choosing a Target: Revising the CARVER Model.

The model as traditionally presented ain’t broke, but we’re gonna fix it. We’re really just recasting some of the model dimensions so we don’t have to do any reverse scoring or such. Make sense? No? Don’t worry about it, just use the model as we offer it here and you’ll be good to go.

The CARVER Model for Target Selection*
(Highest scored target is the best to strike against)

	TGT / TACTIC 1	TGT / TACTIC 2	TGT / TACTIC 3
Criticality. How important is the target to the existence of the force or entity you’re trying to resist? (1 = least critical; 10 = most critical)	10	10	10
Accessibility. How easy is it to get to the target? (1 = very difficult; 10 = very easy)	2	5	9
Recoverability. How easy is it for the target to be repaired? (1 = very easy; 10 = very difficult)	10	5	7
Vulnerability. How easy is it to damage the target? (1 = very difficult; 10 = very easy)	2	4	6
Effect. How much will striking the target negatively effect your opponent? (1 = very little; 10 = very much)	10	1	7
Recognizability. How easy is the target to identify? (1 = very difficult; 10 = very easy)	10	10	10
TOTAL	44	35	46

*Thanks to Deep Green Resistance for a fuller description of the dimensions. https://deepgreenresistance.net/nl/strategy-tactics/tactics-targets/target-selection-carver-matrix/

At the risk of overthinking this model, we offer potential additional dimensions to the CARVER calculus. Resistance planners, use these or not at your discretion, and add any that help your target analysis fir more closely with your strategic situation.

• Political Significance. How likely is it that your Target/Tactic will lead to political opinions sympathetic to your cause? (1 = very unlikely; 10 = very likely)
• Effect on Others. How likely is it that your Target/Tactic will have a negative effect on others not involved in the campaign or action? (1 = very likely; 10 = very unlikely)

Using the Matrix as Flexible Planning Tool.

The developers of the CARVER model assumed the only tactics to be used were those likely to physically destroy or disable the target. However, it’s possible to expand our thinking with regard to this analysis.

For example, we can use the CARVER technique to compare tactics as well as targets in the same matrix (depending on your comfort level with more complex analyses than the typical 3-column approach).

Our initial analysis compared ‘attacking’ The Death Star with physical and legal means, respectively, The Total Scores of 44 (TGT / TACTIC 1) and 35 (TGT / TACTIC 2) indicate a physical attack is preferred. It also makes for a more entertaining movie.

Let’s say, though, that the strategic resource available to you is the legal system. In this case, you might want to look for the target affording you the best return on your investment. Your TGT / TACTIC 3 score of 46 indicates targeting a pipeline using your legal resources is a better bet than using lawyers (sans guns and money) to attack The Death Star.

These examples are admittedly goofy, but we hope instructive. We resorted to these examples because they allow us to discuss a resistance topic without violating security culture guidelines. We hope you’ll exercise forbearance!

Further “CARVER” Thoughts.

GIGO.

We just made up the numbers for our dimension ratings to illustrate our points. You, though, will want your numbers to be accurate, not based on a gut feel or a hypothetical reaction to a hypothetical situation. 

WHY? GIGO – Garbage in, Garbage Out. Bad data lead to bad decisions. If you don’t populate your matrix with accurate, or reasonable, dimension estimates, you won’t get reasonable target estimations on the back end. And that is not a good contribution to your resistance strategy.

How do you get the information to complete the matrix ratings? 

Targets do not have to be physical structures.

Let’s broaden our thinking a bit when it comes to ‘what’ we could target in resistance work. Targets can be people, businesses and so on. Might you, e.g., target the CEO of a pipeline for some sort of action? Maybe DDS a website devoted to fascist propaganda? 

Broadening our notion of what a target could be also opens the door to a much wider set of actions. Sabotage works in some settings, sure. But what if the President of your nation is highly susceptible to mockery? Rule in the tactical use of humor for your strategic armamentarium. It’s been used before, and serves a wide variety of functions in resistance campaigns, as we discuss in Leading Communities of Resistance.

Targeting can be used for offensive or defensive purposes.

The line between these orientations might be blurred at times, but do not limit your plans to either type. Be ready to plan to attack threats to your Community preemptively and on their turf, as well as to plan and execute actions to defend your land and life. As before, keep open the widest possible range of strategic and tactical options to maximize your flexibility and effectiveness in resistance planning.

A Final Word re Targeting.

In life, success is all about options, or so it’s sometimes said. So with target planning. Expand your view of what targeting entails, and be creative in generating target lists and target actions. You may find your resistance Community is on its way to becoming the feared opponent of the dominant culture you’ve always envisioned.

A somewhat effective, albeit political, example of target selection:

https://www.vox.com/23152123/climate-actions-individuals-can-take

A not-so-effective use of target selection: The eco-sabotage group “Tyre Extinguishers”https://dgrnewsservice.org/resistance/direct-action/britains-new-eco-sabotage-group/