It is important to note that mission command is a critical military operations framework with a specialized purpose of decentralization. The emphasis of the given analysis will primarily focus on the intricacies and multifaceted elements of mission command measures with an emphasis on Operation Anaconda as a prime example and illustration.
Mission command is a unique tactical approach within a command philosophy. It can be defined as “the conduct of military operations through decentralized execution based upon mission-type orders” (Deployable Training Division, 2020, p. 1). In other words, the fundamental basis of mission command is to operate military processes on a mission-type structure with less reliance on the centralized authority. It is stated that “mission command exploits the human element…, emphasizing trust, force of will, initiative, judgment, and creativity” (Deployable Training Division, 2020, p. 1). Thus, the role of these factors is of paramount importance for operational effectiveness and efficiency. Military experts suggest that “mission command enables speed, agility, and decisiveness at the tactical level while providing the necessary decision space at the higher level for the up and out engagements to anticipate and set conditions” (Deployable Training Division, 2020, p. 1). Therefore, the given tactical measure combines the advantages of a quick decision making process as well as flexibility and responsiveness due to some degree of independence of military units.
It should be noted that Operation Anaconda is an ideal illustration of core aspects of mission command strategies. It was a military operation utilized in the early 2000s in Afghanistan, where US troops and pro-government Afghan soldiers fought Taliban tribes. The operation can be utilized in order to assess seven core principles of mission command, which include risk acceptance, disciplined initiative, commander’s intent, mission orders, shared understanding, trust, and competence (Deployable Training Division, 2020). In the case of trust and relationships, these principles determine and influence the factor of agility and speed of operations and missions. Trust in command and focus on interpersonal relationships are critical for ensuring the overall success of military efforts. The principle of intent is closely tied to empowerment and operational context, which harnesses shared understanding and competence among the military units. In addition, disciplined initiative and risk acceptance dictate the overall preparedness and readiness of military units to proceed with operations and command irrespective of the enemy’s divergence efforts.
There are four main lessons, which can be derived from Operation Anaconda reflective of core principles of mission command. The first lesson is centered around command unity and joint planning. It is important to note that “joint forces must continue to improve efforts to create unity of command, joint command structures, forward-deployed joint staffs, and joint planning processes for expeditionary operations” (Kugler et al., 2009, p. 9). In other words, the factor of unity cannot be overlooked when conducting mission-based tactics, which involves joint planning in order to ensure that all military personnel are well-informed on every important detail of the operation. For example, during Operation Anaconda, many challenges emerged due to displaced headquarters and distant warfare execution with a highly fragmented command staff, which affected the joint structure (Kugler et al., 2009). The second less is focused on battle plans and intelligence estimates, where it is stated that “accurate intelligence estimates, well-constructed battle plans, and jointly prepared branches and sequels (adaptive plans), which continue to be critical for successful joint combat operations with small mobile forces, remain a necessity” (Kugler et al., 2009, p. 10). Operation Anaconda shows that having adaptive plans in case of problematic initial intelligence estimates can be highly critical in determining whether or not the operation will be successful.
The third lesson is rooted in the process of integrating air-ground operations. It is stated that “U.S. Joint forces need improvements in conducting integrated air-ground operations in such battles. Improvements are needed in creating a common understanding of joint force employment concepts, establishing effective information networks and joint communications systems, as well as in ensuring appropriate command and control of airstrikes in support of ground force operations” (Kugler et al., 2009, p. 10). In other words, joint employment needs to be ensured between different military units, such as ground and air units. Operation Anaconda is an ideal demonstration of how important it is to establish authority distribution to make effective tactical and operational plans and decisions. The fourth lesson is focused on rules of engagement and mission orders. It is stated that “U.S. forces in battle require adequate mission orders, rules of engagement (ROE), and associated fire restrictions that give clear guidance and exert proper controls while providing force commanders the authority and latitude to execute their missions” (Kugler et al., 2009, p. 11). Thus, the statement is reflective of a core aspect of competence and shared understanding in mission-type operations. During the initial days of Operation Anaconda, there were delays in command and fire authorization procedures, which risked critical target fires.
In conclusion, the given lessons address the importance of preparedness and information sharing as well as adaptability, which is rooted in command unity and joint effectiveness. Operation Anaconda shows that commanders need to be capable of quick adaptive decision making, which requires a significant level of cooperation and joint understanding.
References
Deployable Training Division. (2020). Mission command [PDF document].
Kugler, R. L., Baranick, M., & Binnendijk, H. (2009). Operation Anaconda: Lessons for joint operations [PDF document].