Mission Command Essay

Success in armed conflict does not happen without the challenge of overcoming opposition and adversity. In any instance of armed conflict, there is a requirement on both sides to remain resilient and continually adapt to any unanticipated obstacles and mission deviations. Accurate intelligence, adaptive planning, and collaborative capabilities of the forces executing the mission have a direct impact on whether dominance will be established over the enemy. Ultimately, the victor in war is the group that has superior resilience and adaptability affected by informed, responsive, and expeditious tactical planning and collaboration. Army doctrine guides these qualities in the principles of mission command. A clear illustration of the importance

No plan can account for every possibility, and most plans must change rapidly during execution to account for changes in the situation” (Headquarters, Department of the Army, ADP 6-0 Mission Command 2019). The mission command approach is designed to support leaders and troops in situations like Operation Anaconda. In this case, the most effective methods to collect intelligence were applied, however, factors outside of their control yielded inaccurate information which was then gathered and utilized for planning. The key principles embedded in mission command are competence, mutual trust, shared understanding, commander's intent, mission orders, disciplined initiative, and risk assessment (Headquarters, Department of the Army, ADP 6-0 Mission Command 2019). These key principles are not designed to direct the specific steps in how to accomplish the mission (Headquarters, Department of the Army, ADP 6-0 Mission Command 2019), but instead, act more as guidelines to support leaders’ decision-making and provide the opportunity for adaptability in the chaos of

Reliance on external militant friendly forces attributed to several significant mission command weaknesses. Competence, mutual trust, and shared understanding were principles that almost prevented the United States' victory in this case. Upon reflection, these are lessons learned and “serve as a cautionary tale for Americans convinced that our technological superiority is a foolproof defense against the element of surprise in the mountains of Afghanistan, the streets of Baghdad or on any other future battlefield” (Naylor, 2003). Successful completion of the “Hammer and Anvil” method was reliant on the competence of friendly Afghan forces, who ultimately were unorganized, untrained, and operated under their authority (Kugler, 2007). Mutual trust and shared understanding were the most preventable of the mission command weaknesses. Improved and unified communication efforts and shared understanding of authority would have reduced confusion and streamlined effective