Operation Anaconda was one of the operations of the global war on terrorism. It was carried out by an international coalition led by the United States against the forces of the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan from March 1, 2002 (Adamec & Johnson, 2021). The US command declared Operation Anaconda a significant success for the coalition, but this statement was ambiguously perceived in army circles. The experience of the operation led to an improvement in the mechanisms of interaction between the Air Force and the US Army (Adamec & Johnson, 2021). When considering the planning of an operation and the analysis of the command principles, it becomes clear how serious the planning of a military operation for predicting its outcome.
Six Principles of Mission Command
Good command and control of ground operations are essential to predicting the outcome of a battle. The command of any mission is based on the principles of leadership competence, mutual trust between fighters and command, a common understanding of goals, clarity of orders, initiative and the ability to take risks. (Willey, 2020). The competence of the US military was tested in the battles of Operation Anaconda. The success of the American troops was due to the competence and mutual trust of the soldiers in the commander. Mutual trust is a shared trust that must be extended throughout the chain of command (Willey, 2020). The principle of trust between warriors was implemented as a result of Operation Anaconda, when the Afghan alliance was absent as a result of demoralization.
Operation Anaconda was a collaboration of states, groups, and companies. Mutual trust was assumed between these groups to exchange intelligence data and information about the operational situation. The generals in charge of the operation, Mikolashek Hagenbeck and Franks, received conflicting intelligence, resulting in contradictions between them. (Adamec & Johnson, 2021). Later, the principle of common understanding was implemented by appointing General Franks as the sole commander to resolve conflicts. (Adamec & Johnson, 2021). The commander’s intention becomes the basis upon which the soldiers must base their decisions (Willey, 2020). The appointment of one commander becomes the basis, as the soldiers must clearly see the hierarchy, basing their decisions on the intent of the leader.
The mission statement was clear and direct but not vague as to make it difficult for subordinates to make decisions in combat, nor so vague as to lead to confusion and indecision. All military operations involve the risk of injury or death, despite case studies to minimize risk. Each member of a military operation must be aware of these risks and be prepared to take them.
Operation Anaconda Battle Plans
At the beginning of 2022, the command of the American troops decided to conduct a ground operation supported from the air in the Shakhi-Kot valley. It was planned to land helicopters at eight critical points in the valley, cut off all escape routes, and destroy the enemy with airstrikes (Adamec & Johnson, 2021). There are only two roads leading to the valley, and both of them can be blocked by small forces. In the early stages of planning, Operation Anaconda was a typical hammer and anvil plan. (Adamec & Johnson, 2021). The main calculation in planning the operation was the underestimation of enemy forces (Kugler, 2007). Insufficient intelligence reported that the enemy would not offer serious resistance.
Al-Qaeda fighters were well prepared for a long defense, and the plan failed, forcing the American command to improvise. The battle on the Thakur-Gar Ridge on March 4 became one of the most famous operations of the war, during which American special forces were ambushed three times (Adamec & Johnson, 2021). A possible reason for such strategic failures was the inconsistency of the actions of the units. The coalition forces were able to enter the valley only thanks to the powerful support of aviation, which became the decisive factor in the positive outcome of the battle. From the very beginning of the operation, everything did not go according to the plan of the American strategists.
The result of the bombing turned out to be the exact opposite of what the Americans were counting on. Instead of fleeing and hiding in a panic, the Taliban drove up several pickup trucks and began shelling the group’s vehicles, accumulated in front of the entrance to the valley (Adamec & Johnson, 2021). As a result of the shelling, about 40 special forces and the Afghans accompanying them were killed or injured (Adamec & Johnson, 2021). An attempt by spetsnaz to advance deep into the valley was met with a severe rebuff by fire from small arms and heavy machine guns. It finally became clear that a surprise attack would not work, and the Taliban defense was well prepared.
The Role of Plans on the Battle’s Outcome
On the first day of the operation, when intelligence miscalculations became apparent, the number of troops had to be increased by attracting additional units. Helicopters were deployed several hundred soldiers and officers additionally. Only the next day, in the northern part of the valley, where the fire was not so intense, the second wave of troops of 200 people was able to land Adamec & Johnson, 2021). The need to rescue the American and allied troops blocked on Takur-Ghar and the inability to turn the tide in their favor by other methods forced the command to involve additional aviation forces.
Thanks to the actions of combat helicopters, the top of Mount Takur-Gar was cleared of militants, after which the rangers defending it were evacuated. By March 12, after a massive bombardment, joint American and Afghan forces succeeded in pushing the enemy out of the valley (Adamec & Johnson, 2021). A total of 8 US military personnel were killed, and 82 were injured. Despite the overall success of Operation Anaconda, planning errors led to heavy losses in both men and equipment (Adamec & Johnson, 2021). The main problems were related to the preliminary assessment of conflicting intelligence data and the adoption of hasty decisions.
Planning errors determined the outcome: the group was forced out of the valley, but the US army and its members suffered heavy losses; many Taliban managed to escape and avoid punishment. However, the ability to quickly adapt to a changing environment helped the command attract aircraft and win (Kugler, 2007). All principles of command philosophy were implemented during Operation Anaconda. Despite miscalculations at the planning stage, the command was competent, and the fighters showed general confidence (Kugler, 2007). There was also a clear mission and a shared understanding among all fighters. Mutual coordination between the fighters, their risk-taking, and the ability to command to adapt determined the battle’s outcome.
Conclusion
Operation Anaconda has become a battle that can be studied as an example of how contingencies can be exploited. Command and control evolved into a healthy, structured philosophy now recognized by Mission Command. The command principles were applied in every battle, which ensured a favorable outcome of the battle. Planning a battle early can avoid many losses, but the ability to adapt to changing conditions is also essential. During Operation Anaconda, it was possible to estimate the actual resistance of the Taliban; however, even without this data, the enemy was forced out.
References
Adamec, L. W., & Johnson, T. H. (2021). Historical dictionary of Afghanistan. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Kugler, R. L. (2007). Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan: A case study of adaptation in battle. National Defense Center for technology and national security policy.
Willey, Z. (2020). ADP 6-0 Mission command and control of army forces. Amazon Digital Services.