Mission Command Analysis: Operation Anaconda
Army Doctrinal Reference Publication 6-0 defines mission command as “the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander's intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations.” In other words, mission command is the way a leader develops and leads his subordinates into accomplishing the mission while leaving room for leaders to take ownership and initiative in completing the mission. Mission command has served us well in the unforgiving crucible of ground combat and will be essential for winning in complex future environments.[1]The philosophy of mission command is guided by six commands: build cohesive teams through mutual trust, create shared understanding, provide a clear commander's intent, exercise disciplined initiative, use mission orders, and accept prudent risk. (2)
First, let's define the six commands. “Build cohesive teams through mutual trust” means that commanders must have the confidence that all required tasks for a properly functioning organization are being carried out. Working towards a difficult objective together is arguably the best way to build unit cohesion. “Creating shared understanding” means sharing an understanding of the operational environment, the operation’s purpose, problems, and approaches to solving them. “Provide a clear commander's intent” is a clear expression of the resolution of the operation and the desired military end state that supports mission command, provides focus to the staff, and helps subordinate and supporting commanders act to achieve the commander’s results without further orders, even if the operation does not go as planned. “Exercise disciplined initiative” is an action in the absence of orders, when existing orders no longer fit the situation, or when sudden opportunities arise. “Use mission orders” are instructions that emphasize to subordinates the results be achieved while giving them the freedom to determine how to achieve them. “Prudent risk” is a methodical exposure to potential injury or loss when the commander judges the outcome in terms of mission accomplishment as worth the cost. To further understand the six commands, an analysis using the operation Anaconda will be performed.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Anaconda is the code name for an operation in early March 2002 in which US military forces and CIA Paramilitary Officers, working together with Afghan units and allied countries, tried to destroy Al Qaeda and Taliban supporters in the wake of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks against New York City and Washington, D.C.[x] During Operation Anaconda, the “Create shared understanding” mission command was missing at the beginning. The task chart did not reflect which commander, JSOTF or CJTF Mountain, retained the tactical control execution authority of the Joint Special Operation Air Component. This led to confusion as to who prioritized and tasked AC-130s. These conflicts led to a waste of time when firepower was needed on enemy forces and positions. This could have been avoided if the “create shared understanding” command was implemented from the beginning. Another command that was affected by this situation was “Build cohesive teams through mutual trust”. Having commanders with different backgrounds With multiple units involved and numerous commanders in charge, it was difficult to establish a cohesive team that entrusted one another to accomplish the mission.
Undoubtedly, this operation did not have a clear “Provide a clear commander's intent” and “use mission order”. An example that shows that the operation lacked a commander’s intent and mission order was when aircraft strike a limited number of enemy targets. The ground force did not know that airstrikes were going to start and this resulted in one of the bombs going off in close proximity to one of the teams, causing the airstrike to stop before their objective was completed. While this was a necessary tactical choice brought about by unanticipated circumstances, it freed al Qaeda troops to ascend into defensive positions in the mountains and to fire at deployed U.S. Army troops. All the confusion might have been prevented if every commander had a clear intent and mission order.
On the other hand, it can be observed how the troops were able to put the “Exercise disciplined initiative” command into action. Inaccurate intelligence of enemy capabilities and intentions thus was the first thing that went wrong during Operation Anaconda. The actual number of fighters was considerably higher than expected, they were more heavily armed than thought. (x) The U.S. troops found themselves in a much bigger fight than any of them anticipated. They expected a short battle and easy victory. What occurred was the opposite: a hard, pitched battle that dragged on for several days, during which the enemy put up fierce resistance and was dislodged only after intense U.S. bombing. Nevertheless, the troop was able to take action in the situation even when existing orders no longer fit the battle they were anticipating and win the battle.
Finally, “accept the prudent risk” is something that comes with every mission. Every operation will always have a risk associated with it, it is up to the commander to make the decisions based on intelligence information gathered before going into battle. Sadly, eight American were killed during Operation Anaconda.
In conclusion, Operation Anaconda has continued to provide significant insight for military commanders and personnel on how to conduct joint operations. While varying degrees of failure was pervasive throughout the beginning stages of Anaconda, mission command ensured that these failures would not be catastrophic. The six principles are crucial for the success of an operation. Mission command requires tactically and technically competent commanders, staff, and subordinates operating in an environment of mutual trust and shared understanding. It requires building effective teams and a command climate in which commanders encourage subordinates to take risks and exercise disciplined initiative to seize opportunities and counter threats within the commander’s intent. Through mission orders, commanders focus their subordinates on the purpose of an operation rather than on the details of how to perform assigned tasks. This allows subordinates the greatest possible freedom of action in the context of a particular situation. Finally, when delegating authority to subordinates, commanders set the necessary conditions for success by allocating resources to subordinates based on assigned tasks.
References
- Edgar Fleri, Ernest Howard, Jeffery Hukill, and Thomas R. Searle (2003). Operation Anaconda Case Study. 13-22
- Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 6-0, (2012). Mission Command. 20
Stuck on your essay?
