This paper appraises Operation Anaconda — the first large-scale battle of Operation Enduring Freedom, conducted in Afghanistan's Shahi Kot Valley in 2002 — through the lens of the six principles of mission command. Drawing on Army Doctrine Reference Publication (2014) and case study analyses by Kugler et al., the paper evaluates how well the operation adhered to each principle: building cohesive teams through mutual trust, creating shared understanding, providing a clear commander's intent, exercising disciplined initiative, using mission orders, and accepting prudent risk. The analysis reveals that structural deficiencies — particularly the absence of a unified joint command — undermined compliance with nearly every principle and contributed significantly to the operation's failures.
Kugler (2007) states that Operation Anaconda was the first large-scale battle carried out as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, incorporating joint efforts between Special Forces and multinational partners. These forces worked together in the Shahi Kot Valley in Afghanistan in 2002. The battle took place in rugged mountainous terrain under extremely complex circumstances. In addition to the challenging terrain, soldiers experienced numerous difficulties that contributed to the failure of the mission. Since then, Operation Anaconda has provided significant lessons for the military. Based on the Operation Anaconda case study, this paper appraises the battle using the six principles of mission command and provides insights into what contributed to its failure.
Military commanders have traditionally used variations of two basic concepts of command: mission command and detailed command (Army Doctrine Reference Publication, 2014). The most widely preferred concept is mission command, which has been utilized since the 1980s. It is preferred because it helps leaders overcome the intrinsic challenges associated with unified land operations. Mission command is defined as the exercise of authority and direction by a military commander through the use of mission orders that focus on disciplined initiative. These orders are issued in line with the commander's intent to empower adaptive and agile leaders when conducting unified land operations. The army's approach to mission command entails unifying the philosophy of command and warfighting function in order to be effective and successful in a given operation.
As an important component of military operations, mission command has six principles that guide the decisions and orders of the military commander. These six principles are: building cohesive teams through mutual trust, creating shared understanding, providing a clear commander's intent, exercising disciplined initiative, using mission orders, and accepting prudent risk. The principles operate on the premise that mission command decentralizes decision-making authority while empowering subordinates with the freedom of action.
Building cohesive teams through mutual trust is regarded as a foundational principle of mission command. Military commanders build teams through their leadership when conducting unified operations. Mutual trust is defined as shared confidence among the various stakeholders involved in an operation, including commanders, subordinates, and partners. Since building trust takes time, the actions of these stakeholders determine whether trust is gained or lost. According to the Army Doctrine Reference Publication (2014), trust is based on individual qualities such as integrity, personal example, and professional competence.
This principle was especially critical in Operation Anaconda, which involved collaboration between Special Forces and multinational partners. The operation lacked trust among these various partners, hindering the development of cohesive teams. This was primarily because unity of command had not been established before the operation began (Kugler, 2007). Furthermore, the initial phases of the battle were conducted without a joint commander and command staff in Afghanistan. When multinational partners came on board, it was therefore difficult for the commander to develop trust and cohesiveness within the forces. The commander also faced challenges in uniting the divergent capabilities of various partners toward successful collaborative and cooperative efforts.
Creating shared understanding of the operational environment is a major challenge for commanders, unified action partners, and staffs. These stakeholders similarly face difficulties in creating shared understanding of the purpose, problems, and approaches for resolving those problems. Shared understanding is built through ongoing collaboration in planning, preparation, execution, and assessment. Joint planning was a significant issue in Operation Anaconda due to the lack of joint command structures and a centralized unity of command. The participating component units did not have clear-cut unified command structures and command relationships (Kugler, Baranick, & Binnendijk, 2009). The operation was further characterized by difficulties in conducting joint operations at all levels, indicating a pervasive lack of shared understanding among its stakeholders.
"Unclear intent and problematic disciplined initiative"
"Failures in mission orders and risk assessment"
Army Doctrine Reference Publication. (2014). Mission Command. Retrieved March 1, 2019, from https://armypubs.us.army.mil/doctrine/index.html
Kugler, R. (2007). Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan — A case study of adaptation in battle. Retrieved March 1, 2019, from
Kugler, R. L., Baranick, M., & Binnendijk, H. (2009, March). Operation Anaconda: Lessons for joint operations. Retrieved January 20, 2019, from https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/134858/DTP%2060%20Operation%20Anaconda.pdf
You’re 53% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.