Operation Anaconda Mission Command Essay

The Army’s ability to plan, prepare, and execute operations anywhere in the world is derived from decisions that Mission Command makes. “Mission Command is the Army’s approach to command and control that empowers subordinate decision making and decentralized execution appropriate to the situation.” (ADP 6-0. 2019) Without command and control, there would be no operations that could exist. Even though Operation Anaconda was considered a successful operation, it lacked multiple elements that are driven from mission command. Elements like competence from adjacent coalition forces, shared understanding not only from an intelligence aspect but also from supporting Task Forces, and risk acceptance which left behind crucial equipment that was deemed

Competence is the ability to achieve a successful performance through knowledge and skill. There needs to be competence in understanding a task that is given to succeed. With Operation Anaconda, there were a variety of scenarios that lacked competence which impeded progress for the operation. One of the first examples comes from the issue that 10th Mountain needed personnel to plus up the number of people participating in the operation. Since the unit got new people, the new soldiers were not accustomed to the standard operating procedures that 10th Mountain had in place. Through this, new leaders and soldiers were not as competent as those of soldiers that were a part of the organization for some time. This effected the higher levels of command from getting new leaders added to the staff to assist with making calculated analysis and help form possible solutions. Also, it impacted lower levels of soldiers at a team, squad, and platoon level because extra care and training was needed to teach the new recruits the ways in which their team fought. Competence was also

When a clear picture is not presented, it creates challenges for staff members to hopefully overcome to help support a decision. The first issue this operation had for shared understanding was that the operation had several people in charge at the same level. Usually in operations you have one hierarchy and lower levels of leaders underneath that hierarchy. For instance, the militia forces were under the control of Zia Lodin. Zia worked with the U.S. armed forces, but the U.S. Army was not in charge of them. So, when Zia ordered his militia to retreat, he had every right to and was not disobeying an order. Another occurrence was that the Coalition Forces Air Component Command did not answer to the Land Component Command. This led to aircraft not being supported in a way that the Land Component Commander needed. Shared understanding is also conducted through intelligence. The information of what enemy forces were on and around the objective was different than what the coalition task force engaged with. This directed the coalition forces to leave behind equipment that they thought was not necessary for the operation due to the lessen amount of enemy anticipated on the objective. Without a shared understanding through all planes of a task force, decision points were made, and events took place that incumbered Operation