Operation Anaconda Mission Command Essay

On July 30, 2008, a bloody battle involving Coalition forces took place in the mountainous eastern Afghan province of Nuristan. This was the Battle of Wanat and the devastating amount of Coalition casualties began a vigorous investigation by the United States Army. The village of Wanat, defended by Second Platoon, Chosen Company, Second Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team would fall victim to numerous bad decision made by higher command. Although the men of Chosen Company fought hard, they ended up surrounded, vastly outnumbered, and without any Battalion assets. This paper will argue the reasons for the disastrous outcome of the Battle of Wanat; examining the effective company leadership exploiting effective

Proof #2: Lack of Command Structure and Communications This section will examine how lack of command structure and communications directly attributed to the failure of OPERATION SPRING. This will be achieved through the explanation of the German reinforcement of the St. Martin Road leading to the intended Canadian assembly area of St. Martin, and how the fierce resistance on this road would lead not only to a delay in the intended assault time, but also the killing of the two highest ranking officers of the regiment prior to the

This battle, which lasted for two weeks and involved US and Afghan forces engaging with members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, is seen as a turning point in the war, with the US-led coalition ultimately driving the enemy forces out of the valley (Kugler, 2007). The battle was significant in that it demonstrated the effectiveness of US-led coalition forces in a mountainous terrain and against a determined enemy. The coalition forces employed air strikes and ground troops to drive out the enemy, and the success of this strategy was evident in the outcome of the battle. Furthermore, Operation Anaconda demonstrated the importance of collaboration between US and Afghan forces, with the latter playing an important role in the battle. The battle also highlighted the need for US and Afghan forces to carefully consider the terrain and environment when engaging with the enemy.

Air Forces, initially seen as something other than an essential part of the operation. General Franks and General Mikolashek needed competence in their subordinate commander General Hagenbeck to give him the leverage he needed to make command decisions. Therefore, the military forces must devise a new plan without veering from the commander's intent. This new plan consisted of massive air strikes to support U.S. Army forces in the valley. Having a shared understanding as defined in ADP 6-0 (2019) paragraph 1-38, commanders and staffs actively create shared understanding throughout operations (planning, preparation, execution, and assessment).

Operation Eagle Claw The purpose of this paper is to outline the events of Operation Eagle Claw, the mistakes made, lessons learned, and additional outcomes. Operation Eagle Claw was essentially doomed from the beginning. President Jimmy Carter hastily authorized a Joint forces operation which inevitably failed due to lack of understanding and training between the forces. There was no single point of failure for the mission; it was across the board, from training to planning, intelligence collection, and time.

Leadership failure was primarily because the forces had never worked together before. Therefore, they did not communicate between with each other to exchange information and

Therefore, he dispatched his 2nd Brigade Commander, Colonel Anderson, to gather as much information as possible, assess the situation, then report back describing the conditions in order for Major General Petraeus to lead, and direct his units in Mosul. This paper explores the aspects he used to lead, direct, and assess the 101st Airborne Division in Mosul. Moreover, how General Petraeus was able to utilize artful

Introduction: Operation Anaconda was one of the largest operations conducted by the United States and coalition forces in Afghanistan in March 2002. The operation was aimed at destroying Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in the Shah-i-Kot Valley in eastern Afghanistan. The success of the operation was due in part to the principles of mission command, which allowed individual soldiers like M.Sgt. John Chapman to demonstrate their leadership and bravery on the battlefield. This analytical essay will examine the seven army principles of mission command and how they were demonstrated in the story of M.Sgt.

General Petraeus and his Leadership Approach to Mosul A Leaders Restoration of a Nation Following the invasion of Coalition Forces into Iraq in March of 2003 the Army’s 101st Airborne Division, commanded by Major General David Petraeus, found itself in the Northern Iraqi city of Mosul (Lundberg, 2008). With the invasion complete and capturing of the capitol city of Baghdad accomplished, Major General Petraeus and staff began confronting the issues and concerns of what lay ahead for the duration of the unit’s deployment (Lundberg, 2008). The development and implementation of Major General David Petraeus’ strategy to bring stability to Mosul, Iraq and surrounding areas following the 2003 invasion provides insight into his leadership approach

Colonel Paul Freeman commanded the 23rd Regimental Combat Team to victory at the Battle of Chipyong-ni, marking the first major victory by the United States Army over the Chinese Communist Forces (CCF) in the Korean War. This is an account of his heroism and supporting his brothers-in-arms. Colonel Freeman was able to demonstrate mission command through action. He used the following four mission command principles: build cohesive teams through mutual trust, create a shared understanding, provide a clear commander's intent, and accept the prudent risk. Colonel Freeman was able to build cohesive teams through mutual trust, by utilizing engaged leadership, previous combat experiences, and promoting a positive command environment.

(U.S. Army, 2020) For military intelligence this could be synchronization of internal personnel to accomplish a mission set or leveraging outside personnel, units, or agencies to enhance an operation. Failure to coordinate could lead to intelligence Soldiers not being able to complete their assigned portion of the mission. Thus, causing intelligence gaps from a lack of collection and not providing a complete picture of the battlespace for the commander to make accurate decisions. Much like Soldiers not being proficient in individual tasks leads to failure of collective tasks; poor intelligence leads to poor mission planning and

General Patton drove the Allied forces since he had already built the cohesive team through mutual trust. General Patton also created a shared understanding throughout all of his troops of the mission they had to accomplish. General Patton also was highly known throughout the war for always giving a clear commander’s intent and did so again in the Battle of the Bulge. General Patton also used mission orders to ensure that his subordinate units completed the strategic objective of the operation and didn’t worry about micromanaging their Soldiers. General Patton helped put the

By definition, “mission command is 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,” according to ADRP 5-0. Mission command is about knowing when to change the task to fit the purpose. This paper is intended to analyze the mission command of one side of the battle, focusing on the commander’s role in the operations process. The Battle of Bunker Hill was the most important battle of the American Revolution because of Colonel Prescott’s superior command and control.

Joint Planning for Operation Anaconda SFC Spurlock, Matthew MLC Class 005-18 Joint Planning for Operation Anaconda Since the beginning of the Global War on Terrorism, there have been numerous battles. One of the most important battles that shaped future joint planning of operations was Operation Anaconda. The outcome of this operation was ultimately successful, however, the original intent from the commanders were not met due to errors in the joint planning process. Joint planning during Operation Anaconda proved ineffective because of inaccurate intelligence about the terrain and weather, the exemption of Air Force and Navy during the initial planning phase, and false assumptions about the enemy. Intelligence Intelligence Preparation

The U.S. Army demands that all its members be accountable for their actions, equipment, records, duties and even for their fellow warriors. Planning for operations, especially during times of war, stresses the importance of