Introduction
In March and April 2002, multinational forces in Afghanistan conducted Operation Anaconda to locate and destroy al-Qaida fighters and their bases in the southern parts of the country. U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla., provided overall command of the operation. Reconnaissance preparations for the operation included the discovery of heavily camouflaged bunkers in the mountain pass of Takur Ghar (Department of the Army, 2020). The snow that had fallen made them nearly invisible, and a decision was made to send an amphibious assault. 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 15km, and its occupation was a priority (Kugler, 2007). This operation would not have been possible without the basic principles followed by management. Judging from the analyzed operation, the basic principles of command were respect for the soldiers, tactfulness, a sober assessment of the situation, courage of fighters, advanced equipment, and awareness of the purpose of the operation.
Historical Overview
To begin with, it is necessary to resume the event from which this operation began. After the MH-47E helicopter had already hovered to disembark the Navy Special Forces unit and air gunner, heavy fire was suddenly directed at the vehicle. Navy Special Forces Sgt. Robertet, who remained on top, activated the emergency transmitter and opened fire with his service weapon but was shot and killed (Wadle, 2018). What is remarkable here is the principle of bravery of the fighters. Despite the hopelessness of the situation, the room did not fear death for the good of the whole team, putting their lives on the line. The second helicopter circled back over the scene to reconnoiter but was also fired upon – killing Gunnery Sergeant Chapman and several service members aboard and causing minor damage to the helicopter. A decision was made to withdraw and call in an AC-130 aircraft, which delivered an artillery strike on the insurgents’ location. The tactfulness of the decisions made can be seen at this point. In order for the operation to be successful, the top leadership decided to retreat in time and was not afraid of misunderstanding on the part of the fighters.
Due to the communication problems, the military thought a Navy task force was on top of Thakur Ghar and headed there. Upon arrival, the lead helicopter came under fire from RPG-7 rocket launchers and DShK and RPK machine guns, killing Sergeant Spivak and wounding both pilots (Wadle, 2018). One of the men who had lost control of the helicopter had fallen from a low altitude, killing one of them, and the other two, who had jumped out of the plane, came under fire from the enemy and were killed. Here it is necessary to note the principle of respect for team members. In spite of everything, many remained unharmed and alive only because they understood the goals and how valuable each soldier’s life could be. Under the circumstances, the survivors called for air support while the second helicopter gained altitude and headed back to its home base.
They were able to evacuate the bodies only after additional reconnaissance proved that there was no enemy within 50km of the battle site (Kugler, 2007). During a specially convened press conference, when asked how this could have happened, General Tommy Franks, commander of Central Command, explained, “Our high-tech systems are not always superior to backward methods and means.” (Wadle, 2018). Notable here is the equipment that was used during the operation, because without it, it would have been impossible to request air support and the operation could have failed.
The End of the Conflict
On March 17, 2002, Operation Anaconda ended. Overall, the U.S. command achieved its stated objectives by dislodging the Shar-i-Kot valley from the Taliban militants. The Americans lost 8 of their soldiers, another 82 were wounded (Kugler, 2007). The left side was responsible for the first four days of the operation. The leadership of the U.S. Army and the leaders of the war in Afghanistan considered Operation Anaconda a significant success for the coalition forces, although this optimistic statement was ambiguously perceived in army circles. To achieve this result helped to fully understand the goals of the mission and what it is necessary to strive for. Although not the most successful operation in the history of the armed forces, it demonstrated the importance of introducing such principles to the battlefield.
Conclusions
Operation “Anaconda” highlighted the need to have a commander as close to the combat area as possible, who had to combine all the levers of control of all components in his hands and timely and adequately respond to any changes in the situation. Secondly, at the planning stage, due attention was not paid to the aviation component of the coalition forces. The battle in the Shah-e-Kot Valley remains the most significant battle involving U.S. ground forces in Afghanistan during the war. The result of this operation was a demonstration of how the U.S. Army operates when fighting on the territory of another country. The weaknesses of the Army and what principles need to be worked on further to improve the overall state of the armed forces have become apparent.
References
Department of the Army. (2020). Distribution restriction: Headquarters, department of the army. Web.
Kugler, R. L. (2007). Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan: A Case Study of Adaptation in Battle. Apps.dtic.mil. Web.
Wadle, R. (2018). Afghanistan war : a documentary and reference guide. Greenwood, An Imprint Of Abc-Clio, Llc.