Operation Anaconda and the Six Principles of Mission Command

Mission command is defined in Army Doctrine Publication 6-0 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" (McBride & Snell, 2017). To achieve this objective, six principles of mission command serve as guiding lights: 1) establishing mutual trust to develop cohesion in the team, 2) creating a sense of shared understanding, 3) providing clarity on the commander's 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 explains how the six principles of mission command were applied during Operation Anaconda, which General Franks described as "an absolute and unqualified success" (Kugler, 2007, p. 1).

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 U.S. 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, friendly Afghan forces abandoned the U.S. military, leaving American soldiers to face the enemy alone. The three-day operation grew into a week-long engagement of intense combat and ultimately concluded only after 17 days. Several hundred enemy combatants were killed, and the remaining enemy forces in the valley fled, leaving the U.S. in firm control of the territory (Kugler, 2007). U.S. 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, commander's intent, mission orders, and the acceptance of prudent risk.

American forces used the principle of mutual trust to their advantage after Afghan forces deserted them during the operation. The plan had been to use a combination of forces to subdue the enemy, but the enemy's resistance caused the Afghan 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 demonstrated that their mutual trust was authentic. In spite of heavy resistance, the American soldiers did not lose confidence or morale. They continued to fight for the next two and a half weeks, trusting in one another's 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 reached a successful conclusion.

Trust is what makes teamwork possible. Thanks to strong communication throughout the ranks of American forces during Operation Anaconda, trust never diminished. 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, remaining responsive to their needs, understanding their situation, and appreciating their efforts. Additionally, a culture of trust had been established 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 daily tasks had formed the backbone of the American soldiers' cohesion and spelled the difference between their ability to trust in themselves and in the process, and the Afghan forces' inability to build that same trust.

Understanding is the foundation of trust. Understanding of the operational environment, the goal of the operation, what obstacles might arise, and what options one has all contribute to the successful completion of an operation. In the early stages of Operation Anaconda, leadership lacked shared understanding, and this lack contributed to problems on the ground. For example, Generals Mikolashek, Hagenbeck, and Franks did not share the same views on how best to plan the operation; moreover, each controlled their own units, and none of them oversaw Special Operations Forces. To remedy the situation and create shared understanding, the generals recognized that command had to be more structured and centralized, and General Franks took over and received support from Special Operations Forces (Lambeth, 2005). By uniting under Franks, commanders and soldiers established a cohesive vision throughout the ranks, which created an environment in which trust could be built. Prior to this unity, resistance had characterized the situation. Just as too many cooks in the kitchen can ruin a dinner, too many commanders acting independently can botch a mission. Understanding therefore had to be established through agreement: Franks would head the operation, and this set the stage for trust formation. As Sharpe and Creviston (2013) note, "leaders must visualize and communicate an understandable plan before boots hit the ground; their subordinates must be ready to implement the plan right away." Ultimately, American forces achieved shared understanding under the leadership of Franks, who visualized and communicated a workable plan even as the original plan fell apart at the outset of the operation.

One of the most important aspects of knowing the commander's intent is specificity. A soldier who does not understand what a certain command means requires clear details. This proved true with the Afghan forces who retreated: they did not know the intent of their commander. American forces, however, once they obtained shared understanding throughout the environment, gained the clarity that Franks's leadership provided. The commander's intent is linked to mission orders, which emphasize the key points that need to be known — in other words, the who, what, where, why, and when. Intent is what gives soldiers the latitude to make important decisions in the heat of battle. It does not suppress decision-making; rather, it provides guidance so that soldiers can determine whether their actions are consistent with the commander's intent. When the battle in the valley opened, faulty intelligence had contributed to an expectation that American forces would easily take the territory. The actual size of the enemy force and the ferocity of its resistance quickly shattered that assumption. However, the soldiers understood their commander's intent and did not abandon it simply because the opposition proved more capable than intelligence had estimated (Kugler, 2007). Understanding the commander's intent thus enabled them to keep their heads in the fight and focus on what needed to be done to regroup and attack with precision.