Operation Anaconda and the Six Principles of Mission Command

Introduction

Mission command is defined in the Army Doctrine Publication 6-0 as the exercise of authority and direction by thecommanderusing missionorders to enable disciplined initiative within thecommander'sintent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations (McBride & Snell, 2017). To achieve this objective, six principles of mission command serve as guiding lightsand are: 1) establishing mutual trust to develop cohesion in the team, 2) creating a sense of shared understanding, 3) providing clarity on the commanders intention for the mission, 4) bringing discipline to the initiative, 5) applying mission orders, and 6) accepting prudent risk (Hutchings, 2018). In brief, mutual trust, shared understanding, clarity of purpose, disciplined initiative, mission orders, and prudent risk are the pillars of mission command. This paper will explain how the six principles of mission command were used during Operation Anaconda, which General Franks described as an absolute and unqualified success (Kugler, 2007, p. 1).

Operation Anaconda

Operation Anaconda was a military action to locate and remove Taliban and al Qaeda forces in the Shahikot Valley in Afghanistan in March 2002. The battle plan called for a hammer and anvil attack by US forces that would last three days and involve light combat. The plan quickly unraveled on the first day of attack as enemy resistance proved stronger than forecasted (Kugler, 2007). In the face of this stout resistance, the friendly Afghani forces abandoned the US military, leaving American soldiers to face the enemy alone. The three day operation grew into a week-long operation involving intense combat, and finally it concluded only after 17 days. Several hundred enemy combatants were killed and the rest of the enemy forces in the Valley fled, leaving the US in firm control of the territory (Kugler, 2007). US forces applied the six principles of mission command to ensure a successful operation even when the initial plan ran into unexpected obstacles. The keys to this success were trust, shared understanding, commanders intention, mission orders, and the acceptance of prudent risk.

Mutual Trust

American forces used the principle of mutual trust to their advantage after Afghani forces deserted them in the operation. The plan was to use the combination of forces to subdue the enemy, but the enemys resistance caused the Afghani forces to lose trust in the plan and withdraw from combat. American forces did not retreat, however; on the contrary, they renewed their trust in one another and in their competence to succeed. They had been trained in the warrior ethos, and even after the first day of battle which saw heavy fire, American forces saw that their mutual trust in one another was authentic for in spite of the heavy resistance the American soldiers did not lose confidence or morale. They continued to fight for the next two and half weeks, trusting in one anothers leadership, capabilities, decision-making, and strength. Without this trust, the American forces would have been undermined from the beginning and the operation never would have come to a successful completion.

Trust is what makes teamwork possible. Thanks to strong

As Mission Command (2012) points out, two-way communication and interaction between the commander, subordinates, and Soldiers reinforces trust. Soldiers expect to see the chain of command accomplishing the mission while taking care of their welfare and sharing hardships and danger (p. 19). All of this was evident during the operation: soldiers and commanders maintained two-way flows of communication, and commanders demonstrated authentic leadership by staying engaged with soldiers, responsive to their needs, understanding of their situation, and appreciative of their efforts. Additionally, they had established a culture of trust prior to the mission. As Hutchings (2018) writes, ADRP 6.0 puts it best: Trust is gained or lost through everyday actions more than grand or occasional gestures. This is also true in building a cohesive team. The best teams are formed by doing routine, mundane, daily tasks together. These routine, mundane, daily tasks had formed the backbone of American soldiers at the end of the day and spelled the difference their ability to trust in themselves and in the process and their friendly Afghani forces inability to build trust in the same.

Shared Understanding

Understanding...

…be used to show how important prudent risk was to the operation. Slabinski accepted that there would be significant risk to going in to rescue Roberts. The team might suffer more casualties, and if they all were lost the American forces could quickly lose all morale just like the Afghani forces. Roberts, however, knew that the team had a good chance of succeeding in its rescue mission if it applied the skills, knowledge, tools, and training it had received and took stock of the environment in which they had to work. The team would have to face snow, machine gun fire, rough mountainous terrain, and chaos the whole time.

Slabinski weighed this against knowledge that he could call in close air support for coverage to help drive back the enemy. With enough support from air power, he knew his team could accept the risks they faced. He also knew that by rescuing Roberts, the team would be doing the best thing it could at that possible moment on the mountain. He did not hesitate or proceed with any uncertainty but rather assessed the situation, acknowledged the obstacles, identified the goal and the way to achieve the goal, and proceeded with action. t was this type of acceptance of risk that made the overall operation a success.

Conclusion

Operation Anaconda was a successful military action in the end even though it got off on the wrong foot for lack of shared understanding. However, the American forces had enough training and experience to where they had developed mutual trust at the most fundamental level. Once the commanders agreed to unite under Franks, understanding followed, and the American forces were able to address enemy resistance with more consideration. The commanders intent was also more clearly seen under Franks. This intent motivated men like Sablinski in terms of supplying him with the ability to take disciplined initiative and address mission orders without flinching. However, to succeed, as Sablinski did it also took acceptance of prudent risk. The overall hammer and anvil plan of Operation Anaconda was rooted in the acceptance of prudent riskbut all six mission command principles were needed for it…