Abstract
Operation Anaconda is an example of a successful U. S. Army mission implementation in Afghanistan with structured execution and collaborative work of subordinates. Command principles, such as competence, mutual trust, shared understanding, commander’s intent, mission orders, disciplined initiative, and risk acceptance, were implemented as fundaments to address the unforeseen circumstances. Military tasks enabled the commanders to make concise directives and the subordinates to achieve their goals and beat the enemy. Shared understanding, values, and initiatives allowed the forces to adjust their initial strategy to the challenging provocations of the Taliban. This analytic paper discusses how applying the seven principles of mission command made operation Anaconda in Afghanistan successful. Every tenet is defined and followed by the example of leaders and subordinates’ actions and decisions that significantly improved the situation in Afghan territories.
Introduction
Operation Anaconda is an example of a completed mission performed via a sophisticated strategy and command by the U.S. Army. In March 2002, the American military battled to root out Taliban and al Qaeda forces, achieving that goal by calling on air strikes and suppressing the enemy on the ground in Shahikot Valley of Afghanistan (Kugler, 2007). Although the initial plan required serious modifications, Anaconda displays how well-coordinated and executed teams can adapt to the dangerous and chaotic battlefield circumstances. Furthermore, strong leadership is fundamental for the military, and operating within the principles of mission command is a workable strategy for building efficient teams (Larsdotter, 2019). The tenets are competence, mutual trust, shared understanding, commander’s intent, mission orders, disciplined initiative, and risk acceptance, and all of them were employed by the army at the Shahikot Valley battlefield. This paper aims to discuss how applying the seven principles of mission command made operation Anaconda in Afghanistan successful.
The Principles of Mission Command in Operation Anaconda
Military operations are examples of strict regulations followed by servants’ initiatives united by the mission to combat the enemy. Indeed, Anaconda successfully rooted out dozens of Taliban troops because of the competent and disciplined actions of the U.S. Army soldiers. Servants and subordinates trusted the leaders and completed the orders from the hammer-and-anvil plan implementation to the improvised use of ground reinforcements (Kugler, 2007). The Anaconda reviewed via the principles of mission command demonstrates how the military strategies; thus, discussing each principle implementation in operation is appropriate.
The Principle of Competence
Competence is essential for the U.S. Army forces combating such serious enemies as al Qaeda and is a primary tenet for successful operations. The principle may be defined as the training and education sufficient for subordinates and teams to address the orders correctly and for the commanders to make appropriate decisions in crises and unstable circumstances (Army Doctrine Publication [ADP], 2019). Competence depends on the military school programs and soldiers’ striving for physical, mental, and intellectual self-development. On battlefields, this principle of mission command is demonstrated via the correct use of weapons, clear understanding of the tasks, and collective work of the team. American soldiers were highly-competent during operation Anaconda as they turned the lack of the heavy armor of the friendly Afghan forces into an advantage of mobility on the ground (Kugler, 2007). Commanders and subordinates managed their allies successfully because they had sufficient training to assist, educate, and benefit from light-armed conditions.
The Principle of Mutual Trust
Equally crucial as competence in completing the commands, mutual trust is the foundation of relations between team members who depend on each other on a battlefield. Indeed, this principle means that subordinates rely on their leaders’ decisions and their collective willingness to complete the tasks (ADP, 2019). Furthermore, mutual trust makes soldiers feel more confident in exercising initiatives throughout the mission and enforcing the team’s efficiency. For example, at the beginning of operation Anaconda, the truck with unskilled Afghan allies got into an accident, and the U.S. SOF personnel left the main column to assist, trusting that their team would succeed in acting under changed circumstances (Kugler, 2007). The principle is achieved and implemented into operations when army doctrines are valued and the team understands the mission objectives.
The Principle of Shared Understanding
Indeed, shared understanding is also a tenet of mission command because, without equal perception of strategic goals, environment functioning, and expected outcomes, the team will not be able to work efficiently. The definition of the principle is the unified identification of aims, inevitable problems, workable solutions, and correct comprehension of operations. Shared understanding is developed during the planning, preparation, and execution, enabling commanders to ensure that all subordinates are ready to work collaboratively in achieving the common goal (ADP, 2019). The enemy targets were well-protected in the Anaconda operation, and the U.S. Army soldiers experienced difficulty striking them accurately. However, as the team shared an understanding of the aim to destroy Taliban facilities, they simultaneously collaborated to root them out from the air and ground (Kugler, 2007). Equal comprehension is essential for large military groups to perform efficiently and in accordance with the mission.
The Principle of Commander’s Intent
Shared understanding cannot be properly executed without another principle – clear intents of the military commanders. This tenet emphasizes the importance of concise expression of operation purpose, expected outcomes, and conditions defining the results (ADP, 2019). The Anaconda had a multi-headed commanding system; thus, how comprehensively the leaders outlined their objectives determined crucial decisions, such as the order to keep fighting when the Apache helicopters were damaged at the beginning (Kugler, 2007). Straightforward tasks and shared understanding of the mission purpose enforced the soldiers’ willingness to continue the operation.
The Principle of Mission Orders
After commanders identify their intent concisely, they must make clear directives for their subordinates to follow. Such communication can be achieved through verbal and visual approaches, defining the principle of mission orders. The ADP (2019) claims that “the five-paragraph format (situation, mission, execution, sustainment, and command and signal) is the standard for issuing Army orders” (p. 11). Operation Anaconda was built on sophisticated orders, such as establishing seven blocking positions across the mountains and preparing the uncommitted tactical reserve to address the unexpected events (Kugler, 2007). The commands were given to the soldier, who, however, had a space for their initiatives.
The Principle of Disciplined Initiative
The disciplined initiative is the mission command principle that describes how subordinates may adjust the orders’ tactics to the battlefield circumstances. The U.S. Army’s competence allows the commanders to provide sufficient space for maneuvers as their strategies are dedicated to achieving goals rather than developing a step-by-step tactic. The disciplined initiative is the duty of subordinates to follow the orders and adhere to the initial purpose when an enemy acts unforeseeably (Larsdotter, 2019). For example, the CAS effort planned to be performed as the operation Anaconda started was held because the forces realized their need for better exploration of the rival targets (Kugler, 2007). The disciplined initiative cannot be performed without mutual trust and acceptance that changes result in additional risks.
The Principle of Risk Acceptance
Consequently, risk acceptance, the last principle of mission command, is a cornerstone of a successful military operation. U.S. Army commanders and soldiers should rationally assess the danger and life threat they inevitably face when combatting a serious enemy, such as al Qaeda. This principle was successfully implemented during operation Anaconda when the massive forces were moved to enhance the ground attack with light armor (Kugler, 2007). Risk acceptance allowed the commanders to establish correct orders, enabling the subordinates to improvise in difficult maneuvers.
Conclusion
The seven principles of mission command determine the most appropriate strategies to make military operations efficient. Operation Anaconda displayed how the appliance of competence, mutual trust, and risk acceptance builds collaborative teams, while shared understanding enforces the subordinates’ willingness to combat the enemy. Other principles, such as commanders’ intent and mission orders, enable the leaders to be clear and concise about the goals and achievement tactics, and disciplined initiative addresses soldiers’ decision-making on the battlefield.
References
Army Doctrine Publication. (2019). Mission command: Command and control of army forces.
Kugler, R. (2007). Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan: A case study of adaptation in battle. Case Studies in Defense Transformation, 5.
Larsdotter, K. (2019). Military strategy in the 21st century. Journal of Strategic Studies, 42(2), 155-170.