Mission Command during Operation Anaconda

by Staff Sergeant Jesus A. Navarro, US Army

The 21st century has seen an increase in military operations in Afghanistan as the United States and its allies aimed to eradicate the Al Qaeda threat and provide support to the Afghan Army. One such operation was Operation Anaconda, which was designed to build on the successes of its predecessor, Operation Enduring Freedom. The operation was executed with competence, mutual trust, shared understanding, commander’s intent, mission orders, discipline, initiative, and risk acceptance with the use of the seven Mission Command Principles outlined in Army Doctrine Publication 6.0 Mission Command: Command and Control of Army Forces (ADP). The successful execution of Operation Anaconda can be attributed to the lessons learned from the early stages of the 2001 War and the effective implementation of these principles. These principles are essential for any commander in planning battlefield tactics for success while acknowledging the uncertainties that come with the territory. The effectiveness of these principles has been demonstrated time and again in military operations. It has helped commanders achieve their objectives while minimizing the risks to their troops.

Competence

The success of a recent mission in Afghanistan resulted from careful analysis and the adoption of successful strategies from previous missions. Advanced technology and the coordination of ground troops facilitated by Afghan forces were also crucial factors in the mission’s success, which was led by the United States forces. Task Force Dagger, a special operations unit, played a pivotal role in Operation Anaconda by providing valuable insights into enemy tactics and battlefield conditions (2021). Thanks to the success of Task Force Dagger’s operations, Commander Major General Franklin Heganbeck gained confidence in the abilities of his fighting force, which was well-trained and experienced in combat. The competence of this operation was in line with the Army’s Principal Mission Command, which led to the mutual trust the command team needed in Operation Anaconda.

Mutual Trust

Trust is essential in the military. It is established through personal qualities, shared experiences, and deliberate training. Soldiers must believe in leaders who display competence, character, and commitment. Two-way communication and interaction during shared experiences reinforce trust. Soldiers anticipate their leaders to accomplish the mission, care for their welfare, and lead by example. Trust is the foundation of a robust military unit (2019). Despite the initial attack at Shahikot Valley failing, the command trusted the rest of the armed forces and the Afghan Army to succeed against enemy forces. Another critical principle of Mission Command, a shared understanding, cannot exist without mutual trust.

Shared Understanding

At the beginning of the operation, there needed to be more shared understanding, which caused some issues. The intelligence initially given to the ground forces was not communicated effectively. The enemy fighters were estimated to be around 200-300, armed with light weapons (2007). However, the approach for the operation was understood during the initial stages. After the success of the previous operation, the ground and air forces recognized the importance of collaboration. They created a plan to achieve their objectives. They established shared and individual goals and obtained valuable assets to work towards realizing the commander’s intent.

Commander’s Intent

In order to have a successful mission, the commander’s intent needs to be clear and concise so that everyone understands the end goal (2019). The intent of Operation Anaconda was to drive the enemy out of the occupied valley and into the mountain pass. This would enable the U.S. forces to capture or destroy the enemy with minimal civilian casualties. Clear mission orders were crucial to the success of this operation, and aircraft support was necessary to fulfill the commander’s intent.

Mission Orders

The mission orders are set to achieve the commander’s intent. In the case of Operation Anaconda, the objective was to eliminate the enemy in the Shahikot Valley. Given the mission’s complexity and the involvement of different forces, all involved forces were properly briefed on their roles and responsibilities to ensure a successful mission. The plan was unique as it used both the hammer and anvil methods to execute the mission effectively. The effectiveness of the hammer and anvil methods allowed for discipline initiative when the unexpected happened.

Discipline Initiative

The Army has leaders who sometimes do not take the initiative to make the correct call on the battlefield to save lives. In the case of Operation Anaconda where, discipline initiative was practiced seeking air support to eliminate the enemy, which had U.S. forces pin hillside. Air support greatly contributed to the mission’s success against the enemy. Air Force pilots’ ability to circle providing air support demonstrated the discipline to eliminate the enemy and not have friendly casualties. The pilots showed discipline and accepted the risk when conducting strafe runs and bombing the bunker at the top of the hill.

Risk Acceptance

The responsibility of risk acceptance lies with the commander in any mission, not just limited to Operation Anaconda. Before the mission begins, the commander must analyze all the information during backward planning. Risk acceptance is an essential part of mission command and requires careful consideration. The lessons learned from Task Force Dagger were crucial in reducing the risk. The successful risk acceptance by the commander in Operation Anaconda played a key role in defeating the enemy.

Conclusion

Operation Anaconda faced several obstacles that could have led to a significant loss of U.S. and allied Afghan forces. However, implementing the seven Mission Command principles made the mission successful. These principles demonstrated the competence of the trained soldiers on the ground and enabled the commanders to trust their soldiers and allied forces to carry out the mission. The shared understanding among all parties was communicated, although it may have been incorrect. The commander’s intent, mission orders, and disciplinary initiative were still implied. Despite the risks involved, the planning for the operation was carefully analyzed and methodically executed to ensure that all soldiers’ lives were protected. The seven Mission Command principles are still practiced today, even in non-life-threatening missions. They provide the fundamentals for our warfighters to make a well-trained, proficient fighting force.

References

Department of the Army. (2019). Mission Command: Command and Control of Army Forces (ADP 6.0). Retrieved from https://mscoe.llc.army.mil/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_3791_1&content_id=_685534_1

Kugler, R. L. (2007). Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan: a case study of adaptation in battle. NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIV WASHINGTON DC CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY

Zimmerman, D. (2021). Task Force K-Bar – Special Operations Forces and Operation Enduring Freedom. Defense Media Network. https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/operation-enduring-freedom-the-first-49-days-6/

___________________________

Staff Sergeant Jesus A. Navarro is an esteemed Military Police Noncommissioned Officer with a comprehensive range of leadership experience, having served in roles such as Correctional Specialist and Squad Leader. Currently, he is assigned as Physical Security with added responsibilities encompassing the positions of Training NCO and Digital Training Management System Manager, as well as special projects at the United States Disciplinary Barracks Battalion (Corrections). In parallel to his military duties, Staff Sergeant Navarro is committed to pursuing an associate’s degree in Computer Technology from American Military University.

As the Voice of the Veteran Community, The Havok Journal seeks to publish a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive subjects. Unless specifically noted otherwise, nothing we publish is an official point of view of The Havok Journal or any part of the U.S. government.