The March 2002 operation aimed to defeat hundreds of al-Qaeda fighters in the Panjsher Valley. According to U.S. intelligence, there were 150-200 fighters in the gorge, but the intelligence needed to be more accurate. The operation involved three battalions (1,200 men), the 101st Airborne and 10th Mountain Division of the U.S. Army, units of the U.S. 75th Ranger Regiment, units of U.S. Special Operations Forces, Australia, Germany, Denmark, Canada, Norway, and France, and about 1,000 Afghans (Kalnitski, 2021). The numerical advantage by several dozen times over the overwhelming technical superiority, planned at the earliest stage, is striking.
Preparations for the operation, code-named “Anaconda,” began in February 2002. The plan was to land helicopter gunships in eight key locations in the valley, cut off all escape routes from the Panjsher, and then destroy the enemy with air strikes. Operation Anaconda was scheduled to begin in late February, but due to bad weather, D-Day was postponed until March 2. The fact that the operation was commanded by a general from the 10th Mountain Division and that the SEALs belonging to the Navy had a separate line of command in Bagram and the Emirates added to the spice.
During reconnaissance preparations for the operation, well-camouflaged bunkers were discovered on the mountain pass of Takur Ghar. The snow which had fallen after that made them almost indistinguishable, and a decision was made to send a landing party. From the top of the pass, it was possible to control the valleys on both sides of the ridge at a distance of up to 15 km, so its occupation was a priority. However, the attempted landing involving Special Forces units from all three branches of the U.S. Armed Forces proved unsuccessful. Operation Anaconda is an excellent example of applying the basic principles of mission command, which is why it is necessary to analyze them in depth.
The first command principle present in operation is mutual trust and cohesion. Trust is the expectation that one will act in the best interest of the co-commander or not to his detriment, even when he is vulnerable. This is the key to the success of any team. If mission members act independently, unable to rely on a comrade, the entire team is doomed to failure. A good commander always pays attention to developing mutual trust within the group. Even though the enemy had hit the team for some time, the soldiers persevered because of their spirit. They supported each other and listened to the commander’s orders, which helped them stay in line.
The second principle I highlighted was the commander’s intent. The commander-in-chief of Operation Anaconda clearly articulated his goals and communicated them to the soldiers. This helped achieve a clear understanding between them and, consequently, the development of an accurate strategy and its successful execution. Goal-setting is the active mental action of selecting relevant tasks and identifying the necessary tools to implement them. The commander’s actions are aimed at the team’s success, so intention plays a very important role. The mentees clearly understood what the commander-in-chief wanted to accomplish, which helped avoid miscommunication. If the person in charge is clear on the objectives, the team will likely achieve this fuzzy goal.
The next principle is derived from the previous one; it can be formulated as a general understanding. The conflict within the Anaconda mission team weakened its activities for a time. However, once air traffic control was introduced, the conflict was resolved. The commanders clarified that everyone was in the same position, so mutual understanding was necessary. The main problem with the breakdown of understanding between team members is that a few people row half-heartedly, and the others take the load and get more tired. Openness, respect, and trust are important for the team to achieve the goal.
Because the team members came from different forces, a great effort had to be made to create discipline, which is the fourth principle. It is about the socialization of the individual, of the team. The commanders guided the followers and sharpened their focus on a common goal to create a disciplined imitation. They showed by example that only with the hard work of all team members could success be achieved.
The next principle included in the work of Anaconda Mission is that of following missionary assignments. The fighters responded perfectly to the commander’s orders, which could be loyalty. The followers understood that the commanders-in-chief were highly competent, so they listened to and followed them. Because there were to be no civilian casualties in operation, strict adherence to orders was crucial. The principle of identifying potential risks is the weakness of Operation Anaconda. For example, as mentioned above, U.S. intelligence did not count on more enemy fighters, so it suffered multiple casualties and some civilian casualties. The commanders followed the principle of improving the competence and capabilities of the team but did not apply analytical thinking, which led to negative consequences.
Thus, this operation served as an example of not relying solely on technology. Aerial reconnaissance failed to reveal many insurgent positions, including those at Thakur Ghar. Similarly, radio communication failed at key stages of the operation. Anaconda caused a major crack in the chain of command between Delta Force Command and Task Force 11 High Command. The commanders did an excellent job but paid little attention to analytical thinking. They focused all their energies on building and developing trust among team members.
Reference
Kalnitski, V. (2021). Experiences at the strategic level of the Afghanistan operation. [Master’s thesis]. National Defence University.