Introduction
War is an impossible phenomenon that continues to exist and arise even in modern developed societies. It is characterized by violent rivalries between peoples or powers, motivated by numerous political, ideological, or economic factors. Every commander is responsible for his subordinates and the course of military operations; therefore, he must be guided by certain principles in his actions. Their observance has the effect of reducing chaos and increasing effectiveness, which is particularly notable in Operation Anaconda. Competence, mutual trust, shared understanding, commander’s intent, mission orders, disciplined initiative, and risk-taking are fundamental attitudes that should underlie any commander’s strategy.
Operation Anaconda
It is essential to start from one of the most straightforward yet determining principles of success in wartime: competence. Military psychologists have established that the commander’s authority is the most critical factor in the cohesion of an army unit, combating activity, and the prevention of the psychological traumatization of soldiers (Caruso, 2019). It follows that the effectiveness of combat operations, the morale of subordinates, and the team’s psychological climate depend on the commander’s level of competence in supervising an army unit.
The original plan for Operation Anaconda was a classic “hammer and anvil” scheme, in which U.S.-loyal Afghan forces would enter the valley, and two American battalions would cover all exits to ensure the encirclement of the enemy. The American command in Afghanistan had assumed, at the planning stage, that the enemy would not offer any serious resistance and that the operation would be easy. However, the al-Qaeda fighters were on the defensive, and on the first day, the process had been botched, and the American commanders had to improvise (Army Publishing Directorate, 2019). Nevertheless, their level of competence was high, which allowed coalition forces to enter and inspect the Shahi Kot valley.
The U.S. military command declared Operation Anaconda a major coalition success, but the claim is still controversial in Army circles. Yet, despite the lack of multifaceted success, the commanders accomplished their goal, and the principle of competence was demonstrated in practice. It is equally crucial to note that competence means nothing without trust, which is the second important principle in mission command. In international relations, belief has always played an essential role, for its presence or absence has often impacted matters of war and peace. As the means of warfare improve, this principle emerges as a priority. Even when faith in the justness of war declines, soldiers’ morale can remain high enough if they maintain confidence in their commander, who demonstrates his skills in combat.
The commander’s trust in his subordinates is equally meaningful, which means that for the principle to work effectively, it must prevail throughout the chain of command. As mentioned above, Operation Anaconda was characterized by several setbacks, especially at its beginning. However, the American soldiers and commanders did not retreat and kept their focus on a common goal, trusting each other and thus increasing overall morale. They took every victory and defeat as conveyed joys and challenges and helped each other grow stronger and accomplish missions (Caruso, 2019). It was one of the decisive factors that helped turn the situation in the proper direction, but one can likewise note the setbacks. One of the issues was the lack of adherence to the principle of shared understanding, which was the cause of the first failures.
War is a form of violence involving large groups of people. Therefore, the purpose of military operations must always be moralized, and coordination must be at the highest level to avoid harm to civilians and society. During Operation Anaconda, one can notice the high level of training of the U.S. military, carefully conducted surveillance, and the support of foreign partners, government institutions, and all imaginable military units (Army Publishing Directorate, 2019). Despite this, in the early stages of the war, there was a particular issue with transmitting information, including intelligence.
Each commander was responsible for their regions and assignments, and it was challenging to ascertain the exact location and number of enemy troops. The generals followed their objective, forgetting the need for coordination and a shared understanding of each other and the situation. Their actions limited the ability to access quality and complete data, and it was resumed when they became aware of the crisis (Caruso, 2019). It confirms that without a common understanding, it is impossible to effectively command an operation single-handedly because this effort will not be sufficient to win. Moreover, for any military action to be successful, the commander must have clear intentions and follow them strictly. These must be undoubtedly articulated and have a narrower context than the overall goal of the operation. It is essential to realize that the commander’s intentions cannot be as clearly stated, but they should be the basis for decisions made by the entire regiment.
Only if the purposes emphasize the reasons for the mission can the subordinates perform the combat mission and be guided by the intentions even in the absence of an order. It was characteristic of the Anaconda operation, in which each commander understood precisely the purpose for which he was undertaking the necessary actions (Usae, 2020). This confidence resulted in more decisive actions, the essence of which lies in the following principle. Everyone knows that decisiveness is not always appropriate and that, in some cases, it can be detrimental, even when used with the best of intentions (Caruso, 2019). For example, it can distract team members from their primary responsibilities and divert decision-makers from the problems they need to solve. In addition, people may use initiative and decisiveness for self-serving purposes, such as personal gain or moments of triumph. They may make bad decisions because of a lack of crucial information.
Determination becomes a crisis when success depends on people being in a specific place at a particular time and performing certain tasks in an exact sequence. At the same time, military service is impossible without decisive action; moreover, the principles of initiative and risk-taking depend on it (Usae, 2020). During an operation, it is vital to act quickly and coherently, as well as to understand and assess all possible consequences and to take responsibility.
Particularly noteworthy is the balance of decisiveness, initiative, and risk-taking in the rescue operation conducted by General Slabinski. He was the man who took the quick decision to change the course of action and focus his attention on rescuing a subordinate who had fallen to the summit instead of overcoming the formation of the observation point. On his initiative, reinforcements and equipment were called in, even though the road to the rescue could have been deadly for everyone (Geibel, 2002). This risk of danger, physical injury, and even death is inherent in every military operation. In warfare, the issue of casualties and losses is always particularly acute. Nevertheless, success is possible only if the commander dares to take responsibility and comprehends all the consequences for the team.
Conclusion
Thus, it can be concluded that Operation Anaconda is one of the most complex and confusing military operations, characterized by many contradictions. Although it was close to failure, exemplary command and control helped make it a success. The seven basic principles of management used in operation are still current and valid, and their use enables them to achieve strategic objectives. War always brings destruction and casualties, but only a thorough commandment process can make it less of a blight on all humankind.
References
Army Publishing Directorate. (2019). Mission Command: Command and control of Army Forces, Army Doctrine Publication, 6, 1 – 110.
Caruso, D. (2019). Operation Anaconda.
Geibel, A. (2002). Operation Anaconda, Shah-i-Khot Valley, Afghanistan, 2002. Military Review, 82(3), 72-77.
Usae, N. (2020). Minimum Force: Airborne special reconnaissance in war. Air & Space Power Journal, 34(3), 70-80.