Operation Anaconda was carried out in Shahikot Valley in eastern Afghanistan by the United States forces during early March 2002. The primary objective of the operation was to eradicate the enemy presence that had gathered in the valley. A battle plan, code-named Hammer and Anvil was crafted to aid the United States army in achieving this objective. Execution of the program involved collaboration with Afghan ground forces. On the actual day on site, the enemy resistance was higher than initially anticipated. Furthermore, the lack of Afghan ground forces worsened the situation leaving the American forces alone with the enemy.
The operation was initially intended to last for three days; however, the sudden change in circumstances resulted in it lasting for seven days, with official termination occurring after seventeen days. The American forces had to change tactics and adapt to the changing conditions. For starters, the United States forces called in a more significant number of airstrikes in contrast to the initially planned numbers. Additionally, the American forces employed joint operations and modern information networks to neutralize the complicated procedure.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The operation was deemed successful when hundreds of the enemy soldiers were killed, and the remaining few fled the valley. The success was, however, not an easy win since the American forces also had their share of casualties. A total of eight American personnel were killed, with over fifty soldiers wounded. This battle marked success for American troops in Afghanistan as it was the last time enemy forces tried to confront them. Despite the surprising victory for the American troops, controversies emerged in regards to the initial intelligence information, the command structure, and initial reliance on Afghan friendly ground forces (Kugler, 2007). This paper aims to contrast operation Anaconda against the seven principles of Mission Command to determine the strengths and shortcomings of the mission.
Competence
The success of any mission relies heavily on the nature of the team undertaking it. When it comes to the Anaconda operation, competency was lacking to some degree. For instance, the American forces relied heavily on the Afghan friendlies who were not seasoned soldiers but a bunch of militiamen. This lack of necessary skill led to the Afghan friendlies failing to show up when they were needed, and this almost costed the operation. As for the American forces, they were well-skilled combatants, signifying the high levels of competency they each possessed.
Competency is only one aspect of success in a war. Trust among the personnel while undertaking a mission is of paramount importance, and this ushers in the next principle; mutual trust.
Mutual Trust
Trust relies heavily on the competency of a person. At the battleground, having someone reliable to watch your back is vital for the success of the mission. The American forces placed a significant portion of trust on the Afghan allies despite their differences in background and even military training. This trust was misplaced since there were many differences between the American soldiers and the Afghan ground forces.
Another trust issue in the Anaconda operation was that of the Intelligence team. The information gathered by the intelligence team was readily accepted and used in planning the process. This demonstrated a high level of trust among the chains of command in the American forces. While mutual trust brings people together, making sure they are on the same team requires transparency and information.
Shared Understanding
In the Anaconda operation, the two major players, i.e., the American forces and the Afghan ground troops, tried as much as possible to be on the same page as far as the operational environment was concerned. They all knew that the terrain was in favor of the enemy, and they had to adjust if they stood a chance of winning. The only concern was professionalism. While both teams knew their roles in the operation, a common approach lacked since the level of training between the two was miles apart.
Additionally, when the uncertainty about the number of enemy populations in the valley emerged, the American officials worked together to generate reasonable estimates that were then shared among the entire team undertaking the operation. Despite the forecast being faulty, the principle of shared understanding was upheld. Information is power, and while its good to always be informed while in the war zone, having a clear mission objective is similarly crucial. The commander usually communicates mission objectives, and this is another essential aspect of the discussion.
Commanders Intent
This was an aspect that was successfully achieved in the Anaconda Operation (Cook, Lowe, and Perovich, 2017). The objective of the mission was clear and precise. This ensured that the resources and workforce could all be directed towards a single common goal (Whitford, 2015). Furthermore, the commander of the operation went ahead and segregated the duties of each team, with the American forces being tasked with guarding the exit routes and the Afghan allies arresting the enemies in the villages within the valley. Commander's intent goes hand in hand with the mission orders (Soeters, 2018).
Mission Orders
Similarly, to the commander's intent, mission orders for the Anaconda operation were also apparent. Everyone going into the valley had one initial order; eradicate the valley of all enemy presence. This order was brief and precise, allowing the soldiers on the ground to adapt and innovate to achieve it. The orders also focused on essential tasks, without being too lengthy. Teams were tasked with their roles, and the operation was set in motion. To execute these orders, the teams required a certain level of discipline that ensured their actions were within the set mission orders.
Disciplined Initiative
Unlike the prior two principles where the operation excelled, discipline was an aspect that failed significantly. While the American forces did all, they could to ensure that the objective of the mission was met, the Afghan allies were missing in action. This led to the American troops having to fight on their own. Despite the odds not being in their favor, the American ground troops quickly innovated and used modern technology to ensure they upheld the mission orders and commanders' intents. Risk is a constant factor when undertaking any military assignment. The higher the risk, the higher the rewards. Accepting risk is crucial in mission command as it ensures that the expectations of the mission are realistic.
Risk Acceptance
This is the last principle, and the Anaconda operation successfully met this aspect. Despite the lack of concrete enemy numbers, the American officials calculated a usable estimate, though wrong, that assisted in planning for the operation. Additionally, when the American troops found themselves alone in the field, they decided not to retaliate despite the enemies proving fiercer than initially estimated. The only risk that the Anaconda operation failed to account for was the reliability of the Afghan allies. This miss led to the death of eight American soldiers, and what initially was to be a simple three-day operation turned out to be a delicate seven-day operation. Were it not for the innovation of the American troops, the mission would have been deemed as a total failure.
References
Cook, M. C., Lowe, C. A., & Perovich, C. M. (2017). Landpower Essay . AUSA
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.
Soeters, J. (2018). Organizational cultures in the military. In Handbook of the sociology of the military (pp. 251-272). Springer, Cham.
Whitford, A. (2015). The Path to Mission Command. Military Review , 95 (3), 40.
