Operation Anaconda has played a significant role in the history of the fight against the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda. The organization of the American troops played a unique role in the success of this confrontation. Without proper command and planning, the operation might not have had the desired results. The successes and failures of Operation Anaconda can be critically examined in the context of the six principles of mission command.
Operation Anaconda was conducted by the American government in order to eliminate the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden was the head of this group, and the organization itself was behind the commission of such acts as the bombing of the Twin Towers in 2001 (Thomas, 2021). Operation Anaconda was conducted in March 2002, when the main task of the American troops was to destroy the enemy before it began to act and further harm people and countries. However, Taliban resistance was much stronger than expected, which caused a significant battle to flare up since the beginning of the war.
The application of the basic principles of mission command becomes an effective tool that can be used to analyze Operation Anaconda. Thus, they provide an opportunity to consider in detail all the decisions taken by American troops, which ultimately led to the success of this dangerous and necessary initiative. Before proceeding to the examination, it is necessary to gain awareness of what the principles of mission command include. Hence, these include mutual trust, shared understanding, commander’s intent, mission orders, risk acceptance, and discipline (Tolman, 2020). Each of these principles makes a critical contribution to the effectiveness of the operation and directly affects the interaction of commanders and subordinates. Following these aspects allows ensuring the most coordinated work and solve possible problems and barriers that arise in the way of performing the operation.
One of the main principles of mission command considers the role of risk-taking. Thus, at the very beginning of the operation, the troops had to put themselves in a rather dangerous position. Making this decision implies having the courage and considering all possible consequences. Thus, with the application of this principle, the American troops have developed a detailed plan for the siege of the Taliban troops. They decided to land several helicopters in eight places in the valley, where enemy people were hiding (Kugler, 2019). Moreover, they have positioned small forces at road exits from the target terrain to cut off all escape routes completely.
Further, the principles of command imply the presence of a certain level of education and knowledge that can help develop the most effective strategy for destroying the enemy. Due to sufficient competence in their field, American soldiers decided to use the hammer and anvil plan. (Caruso, 2019). However, this did not provide the American troops with the exemplary conduct of Operation Anaconda since a significant number of mistakes were made. Therefore, the lack of the necessary level of training and knowledge regarding some aspects and subtleties of the enemy and the territory became the reason that the American command in Afghanistan considered that the enemy would not offer serious resistance (Kugler, 2019). Thus, it shows that the military did not calculate the possible consequences, adhering to the opinion that the operation would be completed efficiently and quickly.
Such a principle as shared understanding allowed the American troops to adapt to emerging changes quickly. Consequently, if there were aspects that went against the developed plan, the military could quickly respond to the conditions that arose and take measures to limit the consequences of wrong actions. All the people involved in the operation clearly understand that their main goal is the destruction of the Taliban troops and the termination of the activities of the Al-Qaeda organization (Kugler, 2019). Moreover, their shared understanding included the realization that they primarily protect people who may suffer from the actions of terrorists.
Mutual trust also plays a role and has a close connection with the shared understanding between soldiers and the commander. This is due to the fact that without this aspect, it is impossible to build relations within a military grouping (Tolman, 2020). The most important aspect, in this case, is that, when deciding to participate in the operation, each military man assumes the responsibility to protect not only his own life but also the lives of his colleagues. Thus, mutual trust became a valuable aspect of the Anaconda operation since each soldier was responsible for other people and had to trust them in return.
Commander’s intent allows the soldiers to be inspired and follow the proposed orders unconditionally. Without a firm and explicit command, it is impossible to conduct any military operation effectively (Tolman, 2020). This aspect also concerns the actions of the American government in the fight against a terrorist organization. Proper management of military forces is the main task of the commander. Despite the risk and danger that Operation Anaconda carried, the heads of the military groups had to remain calm and severe and hand them over to their subordinates. This also contributed to a faster resolution of emerging deviations from the plan, as people remained collected and followed the commands set before them.
Due to the fact that incorrect planning and the issues that arose because of this led to the need to attract additional military personnel, the principle of mission orders played a particular role. Therefore, the troop commanders had to adapt to the increased number of military forces and set specific tasks to perform (Kugler, 2019). Research showed that about 200 people were able to land at the place of the battle, and they had 81 and 120 mm mortars (Caruso, 2019). Despite the difficulty of managing such many people, the operation command managed to form and provide mission orders to the military successfully.
It is worth noting that a large number of subordinate military personnel requires compliance with such a principle as disciplined initiative. This aspect can occur not only from the commander but also from the military themselves, which only contributes to the strengthening of the army. As part of Operation Anaconda, discipline was valuable because of the great danger, risks, and ethical issues for the people involved (Tolman, 2020). Thus, the command had a goal to warn people against possible anxiety and always maintain morale. This was done quite well because, despite the difficulties and some mistakes, the military continued to do everything to stop the enemy.
In conclusion, Operation Anaconda has left a significant contribution to the history of the struggle of the United States of America against terrorist organizations. Particular importance in considering the success of these military initiatives should be given to how they observed the basic principles of mission command. These aspects contribute to the most effective conduct of a military operation, but they are of particular value in situations where events occur in inconsistency with the developed plan.
References
Caruso, D. (2019). Operation Anaconda. The Oral History Review, 39(2), 334-336. Web.
Kugler, R. L. (2019). Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan: A case study of adaptation in battle. National Defense Univ Washington Dc Center for Technology and National Security Policy.
Thomas, C. (2021). Al Qaeda: Background, current status, and US policy. Congressional Research Service.
Tolman, F.N. (2020). Mission command a senior enlisted leader’s perspective. Army University Press. Web.