The significant successes and failures of The Battle of Roberts’ Ridge military operation at Anaconda can be explained through the paradigm of the six principles of mission command, namely building cohesive teams based on mutual trust, creating a shared understanding, ensuring clear commander intent, exercising disciplined initiative, using mission orders, and taking reasonable risks.
Competence
Among the most famous military operations conducted by the U.S. is The Battle of Roberts’ Ridge, realized in March 2002. It was conducted by U.S. military forces during Operation Anaconda,” which was aimed at destroying al-Qaeda and Taliban forces (Jackson et al., 2021). “Anaconda” should be viewed as the largest joint operation conducted by CENTCOM, which, despite some setbacks, was ultimately successful in achieving its objectives and resulted in the deaths of several high-level leaders of terrorist organizations. The Battle of Roberts’ Ridge was a short but one of the most discussed battles in Anaconda, and it is this battle that is discussed in this essay from the perspective of the Six Principles.
Mutual Trust
In the context of military command, mutual trust is critical to effective mission management. Key characteristics of mutual trust include ensuring a state within the troops that allows soldiers and commanders to have confidence in each other and in the decisions they make (Ostlund, 2018). The operation, The Battle of Roberts’ Ridge, was an example of the role broken trust and communication play within a team. For example, there were reports of communication breakdowns and a lack of coordination between units during it (Jackson et al., 2021). A major error of The Battle of Roberts’ Ridge was that the team attempted to land on a site that was an unreported stronghold. It is possible that this lack of well-established communication may have been due to a lack of mutual trust between troops and commanders, which ultimately led to confusion and misunderstanding on the battlefield. From an organizational point of view, the operation was planned by the U.S. task force, but it was not satisfactorily received by the local Afghan population, who were allies of the Americans (Jackson et al., 2021). Since there was a conflict between the main alliance forces in the fundamental meaning of the plan, the lack of trust may have been a significant factor in the failure of the operation. Broken trust, however, could lead to a barrier of common understanding.
Shared Understanding
Another factor is shared understanding, ensuring that all troop members have a clear understanding of the mission and objectives. Such an attribute characterizes that every soldier in the military has an understanding of the goals and objectives of the military operation, unambiguously evaluating plans (Ostlund, 2018). Confusion and misunderstanding among soldiers regarding the goals and capabilities of the operation, as well as the intentions of the enemy, have been known to be reported in Operation Anaconda, which may have affected The Battle of Roberts’ Ridge. The language barrier in the alliance between U.S. soldiers and the Afghan population was also an essential factor in the lack of common understanding, which may also have created a lack of established communication (Jackson et al., 2021). Thus, it is possible that the lack of a clear common understanding may have contributed to the mishaps that occurred during the operation, including confusion and misunderstanding among soldiers on the battlefield. When soldiers do not have the capacity for common understanding, it creates a problem for understanding the commander’s intentions as well.
Commander’s Intent
A third factor is the principle of commander’s intent, which allows soldiers to understand the overall purpose of the mission and make decisions in the absence of direct orders. Within a military operation, soldiers do not always have direct access to commanders and must make independent decisions that support the overall guidance of commanders, which is especially relevant in a critical environment (Ostlund, 2018). The principle of commanders’ intent is critical to mission command because it governs the vector of the military operation development. The operation was conducted by several commanders at once, each responsible for a different unit — resulting in a plurality of leadership, which led to confusion. As a result of this uncertainty caused by a plurality of opinions and guidelines, soldiers from the combined forces may not have had a clear picture of conditions in the war zone. There are no attested cases of problems with soldiers’ understanding of such intentions, so it cannot be genuinely argued that operation may have faced difficulties because of problems with this principle. Despite success in understanding the commander’s intent, the battle did not show good results in Mission Orders.
Mission Orders
Mission Orders are also an essential principle within a military command, responding to the ability of commanders to give flexible instructions to their subordinates that can be tailored to specific military conditions rather than being directly prescribed. The advantage of this principle is that troops can make independent decisions on the battlefield, consistent with overall mission objectives but not necessarily dictated by the commander (Ostlund, 2018). It is known that due to inaccuracies and mistakes by reconnaissance units, U.S. troops made a grave mistake in landing a helicopter, which ultimately resulted in fatalities (Battle of Takur Ghar, 2022). Because this aspect reflects the need to adapt quickly to changing conditions, the troops demonstrated unacceptable support for Mission Orders. The lack of understanding of Mission Orders may also have affected discipline in the troops.
Exercise Disciplined Initiative
Exercise Disciplined Initiative is a military command principle that encourages soldiers to take the initiative and make decisions within their authority. In the context of a military operation, this principle empowers soldiers to take responsibility for the potential consequences of their own actions (Ostlund, 2018). During The Battle of Roberts’ Ridge, a disciplined initiative was observed: this is due to the fact that chains of command were structured in such a way that soldiers had to understand the commander’s manuals and could make independent decisions that did not go beyond those manuals (Jackson et al., 2021). On the other hand, the Afghan population, due to communication and cultural barriers, may have had trouble executing such initiatives. Thus, ambiguity in discipline management can be seen as a predictor of unwarranted risks in the troops.
Accept Prudent Risk
Finally, the last factor is adequate risk, which ensures that soldiers, in the absence of command, can take responsibility for risks that are deemed reasonable. For a military operation, reasonable risks correspond to the likelihood of sacrificing some resources if the objective ultimately justifies the means spent (Ostlund, 2018). The casualty statistics for The Battle of Roberts’ Ridge, and Operation Anaconda in general, show that many risks were taken during the operation, and the ultimate success indicates that they were reasonable. However, it is fair to acknowledge that this operation was a strategic failure, in part because senior leadership took risks in the planning stage that were unreasonable (Greentree, 2021). Thus, it is not possible to unequivocally judge whether or not the operation was successful in terms of reasonable risks.
Conclusion
To summarize, The Battle of Roberts’ Ridge, which was part of Operation Anaconda, had to overcome barriers constantly and have casualties, including human casualties. Strategically, the military operation was a failure, mainly because of the lack of adequate planning and reconnaissance mission. This analytical essay sought to critically examine the problems faced by military commanders in the context of the Six Principles.
References
Battle of Takur Ghar. (2022). National guard. Web.
Greentree, T. (2021). What went wrong in Afghanistan? The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters, 51(4), 7-22. Web.
Jackson, C., Haun, P., & Schultz, T. (2021). Air power in the age of primacy. Air warfare since the cold war. Cambridge University Press.
Ostlund, W. (2018). On trust and leadership. Modern War. Web.