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
Principles Of Mission Command: Operation Anaconda. SSG Alicea-Sevilla, Manuel Army Sustainment University SLC: 91/94 CMF Class 23-024 SFC Hercules & Mr. Burger Date:20230428 Introduction/Abstract The essay analyzes the application of the seven command principles by the United States military during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan in 2002. Primarily, an analysis on General Hagenbeck's operational leadership and decision-making through the lens of the seven command principles to evaluate the extent to which he adhered to them.
Thesis Statement Operation Anaconda was a military operation that took place in the Shahikot Valley of Afghanistan. It occurred during the beginning of the war against terrorism in March of 2002. The intent of this operation was to push enemy Taliban and al Qaeda out of the region with possibility of capturing some of the enemies’ top leaders. The battle was ultimately a success; however, this outcome came only after many significant issues within mission command. Despite careful planning and a strong military force, the failure of the command structure during this operation can be attributed to inadequate communication, a lack of flexibility, and a failure to account for the terrain and enemy capability.
Shortly following the conclusion of the United States’ conflict in Korea, the American military once again deployed its service members to Eastern Asia to combat and contain the spread of Communism; this time in the form of the Democratic Republic of North Vietnam. While the vast majority of the American populace recalls the Vietnam War as primarily an exercise of ground forces and maneuver, an often-overlooked aspect of the war is the significant contribution to strategy and successful adaptation to threats demonstrated by Air Defense Artillery Soldiers of the era. One of the more proud moments for the Air Defense Artillery Branch was their pivotal role in the Vietnam War. From the branch’s only Medal of Honor winner, to the Duster, and
The purpose of this paper is to describe how operational art and design led to the success of operation overlord during WWII. Applying Operational art and Design During Operation Overlord Understand operational art and design was critical for the AF during WWII. Operational art is the way commanders and staff approach operations using
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.
• Combined Forces Land Component Command (CFLCC) had six general officers; Transitioning to from a Corp to a CFLCC requires more general officers and requires an increase of personnel which are polled from the Joint Manning Document (JMD), the table of organization that authorized the positions on the joint staff. • Deciding where to place critical command elements • A corps headquarters was the Army’s highest tactical headquarters and normally functioned at the tactical and operational levels of war. During, the transitional process to a CFLCC, however, the corps is required to operate at the tactical, operational, and theater-strategic levels of war. Once augmented, Army doctrine also held that the Corps might have responsibility to create
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.
Schwarzkopf. The national interests of forces involved in a multinational operation may lead to potential conflicts. Alliances can deal with these issues by established command and control structures that take into account differences in national procedures. These structures have personnel from each of the alliance members, who become integral to the A recent example of parallel command structure is the coalition operation in the Persian Gulf War (Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm), in which Western coalition forces came under the control of a US force commander General Schwarzkopf, and the Arab and Muslim coalition forces came under the control of a Saudi force commander General Khaled Bin Sultan. General Schwarzkopf understood that the coalition’s efforts against Iraq were extremely vulnerable to cultural sensitivities, and therefore he made sure to foster cross-cultural interaction throughout the campaign (Dickinson, 2004).
The American military has always worked hard to maintain peace, while still being prepared for war if that time comes. As the Federalists conveyed, we cannot predict when an attack is going to come, and a single, unified force is much more forceful than independent forces. Alexander Hamilton explains in his essay, “The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union,” why he believes standing armies are crucial for defending the country, “...it is impossible to foresee or to define the extent and variety of national exigencies, and the correspondence extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them” (the Penguin Group, 1961, 153). If this was true at that time, how much more true could it be today as strife between nations seems to be flourishing? As America’s power grows, our use of military forces abroad has become increasingly critical.
According to Clausewitz, military commanders must first be aware of the three most important strategic objectives of war: (1) to conquer and destroy the armed power of the enemy; (2) to take possession of his material and other sources of strength, and (3) to gain public opinion.1 To attain the strategic objectives, Clausewitz requires the application of three decisive military principles: military commanders must apply unrelenting pressure and energy to defeat the enemy; military commanders must mass combat power against the enemy’s vulnerability, creating or revealing additional weaknesses that the attacking force can exploit; and commanders must capitalize on speed, surprise, and shock to destroy the enemy. Clausewitz insists that
From my perspective and analyses of some primary resources, I believe religion issue played an undeniable part among many other reasons. Even Hulagu’s personal religion perspective, background, and hatred for Islamism could be essential reasons behind these military
Although many lives were lost in this effort, both enemy and our own, we outgrew their military tactics
Therefore, terrain is about situation, distant or immediate, difficult or easy, opportunities and risks and then the command is the capability and attitude of the leader to manage the country. Last, doctrine are refers to the organization and
Battle of Leyte Gulf The Battle of Leyte Gulf is also known as the Battles of Leyte Gulf and was fought October 23-26, 1944 between The Japanese Imperial Navy and the US Navy near the islands of Leyte, Samar and Luzon. This battle is known as one of the greatest battles of all times as well as the largest naval battle fought in modern history due to 200,000 soldiers involved. In 1942 General Douglas MacArthur had promised the Filipinos that he would return to liberate them. On October 20, 1944 - a few days before the Battle of Leyte Gulf began- General MacArthur kept his promised and arrived in Leyte with the Allied Forces and the US Navy’s Third and Seventh Fleets as support for his invasion (8 Facts About the Battle...that will blow your mind).
