Introduction
The operation codenamed Anaconda is a military operation that was conducted by the US-led international coalition against the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. This operation was planned to use the classic tactical scheme of the hammer and anvil. This idea was not new, but in the second half of the XX century, the appearance of airmobile units significantly expanded the possibilities of its use (Caruso, 2018). This operation is a strong example for military commanders, as it demonstrates the ability to apply the principles of mission command. These principles are unique in that they can overcome unforeseen situations and enable the army to fully realize its potential. Operation Anaconda has become one of the most revealing since it is in it that the principles of mission command are most successfully applied.
Principles of Mission Command
Mission command is an essential and integral element of the conduct of military operations. It is necessary for the ability to command and control military forces to be in balance and contribute to positive results. Management is required to correctly direct parties to the plans of the commander-in-chief. Mission command has a deeper meaning as it is aimed at building the course of hostilities considering the nature of operations, using the philosophy of command (Kugler, 2007). This philosophy implies the application of six basic principles. These principles include creating teams based on trust, showing disciplined initiative, ensuring a common understanding of goals, creating a particular commander’s intention, applying mission orders in practice, and using reasonable risk. Using these principles, US soldiers managed to succeed, although not without difficulty.
Cohesive teams are a prerequisite and one of the basic principles of mission command. The lack of mutual trust between soldiers can lead to a misunderstanding of goals and actions, which will eventually cause a loss. Because the soldiers of the US Army acted together, they managed to achieve positive results in the military operations of Operation Anaconda (Kugler, 2007). Undoubtedly, most of the success of the soldiers’ work is ensured by the correct position of the commanders and the proper instructions. Nevertheless, because the army acted as a whole, it managed to be more effective than its rivals.
The second principle is that commanders can provide their subordinates with an understanding of the overall mission. That is, the commanders were able to formulate specific goals and ways to achieve these goals for the common good of the entire army. The third principle is also the correct formulation of intentions. Throughout the operation, the leadership provided soldiers with information about targets, possible obstacles, and the number of enemy troops (Caruso, 2018). In this case, intelligence played an important role, as well as the ability of commanders to give orders per information about the current state of affairs.
The ability to act at a reasonable risk is one of the six basic principles. Throughout the battle, the commanders received valuable information from intelligence, which made it possible to determine which actions should be taken and which should be abandoned (Kugler, 2007). To implement this principle, the commanders had to assess what risks were reasonable, as well as determine a strategy to mitigate possible negative consequences. Another principle is the ability to use mission orders, which ensured that soldiers would clearly follow orders and respond quickly to changes. The last principle is the ability to show disciplined initiative. Taking the initiative means taking action in the absence of orders, when existing orders do not correspond to the situation or threats arise (ADRP 6-0, 2012). This principle was implemented by sending fighters to concentrate on the primary mission and purpose of military operations.
The US command declared Operation Anaconda a significant success for the coalition, but this statement was ambiguously perceived in army circles. Following the results of the Anaconda, a lively discussion unfolded about why due attention was not paid to the aviation component of the coalition forces at the planning stage (Caruso, 2018). This led to great difficulties in the interaction of ground units with strike aircraft. The experience of this operation led to an improvement in the mechanisms of interaction between the US Air Force and the US Army.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Operation Anaconda has become one of the most significant an example of an operation in which commanders applied six basic principles of mission command. This principle implies the cohesion of soldiers, reasonable risk, contributing to a common understanding of goals, the ability to formulate intentions, the ability to show disciplined initiative, and the ability to use mission orders. However, in addition to these principles, Operation Anaconda required the use of the air force, namely the aviation component of the coalition forces. This element of military operations has not received due attention, which was a significant mistake. In the future, the US Army and the Air Force established communication and improved the mechanism of interaction. Operation Anaconda was one of the main examples of the successful application of the six principles but missed another important element of the battle.
References
ADRP 6-0. (2012).
Caruso, D. (2018) Operation Anaconda. The Oral History Review, 39(2), 334-336.
Kugler, R. (2007). Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan [PDF document].