In today’s military trust is an important part of planning. The commander must trust in their subordinates as well as their subordinates trust in the commander. A unit must train continuously to build a repour for mission success. Without principles of training a unit would not be able to affectively accomplish the mission. In March of 2002 there was a mission executed by the name of Operation Anaconda that took place in the Shahikot Valley of Afghanistan, even though they did complete the mission, the commanders in charge was not properly prepared for what they faced. There were too many in charge and not enough collaborating with all the entities involved. Over the years the military came up with six principles of Mission Command to help avoid the failures of Operation Anaconda. These six principles are described and explains how to use them for mission planning. The planning all starts with trust, if the command team trust the subordinates and trust them to make necessary adjustments as needed when needed the mission will be able to carry out better. Once trust is in the situation all others principles fall into place, even knowing that all missions don’t always go as planned.
How does the Six Principles of Mission Command helps counter the uncertainty of operations? Do the principles really work? Since the days of “Operation Anaconda” back in March of 2002, there wasn’t any type of guidelines or standards set for major operations. Over the years the military came up with the six principles of mission command philosophy that gives a type of standard in organizing and or orchestrating major operations and I will discuss all six principles and how Operation Anaconda were affected by not using the principles.
Principles can be defined as a “comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption.” During Operation Anaconda the planning and execution phases does not seem like they used any type of principles to conduct the operation. Mission command has six phases, starting with the first principle, Build Cohesive Teams Through Mutual Trust.
Trust is a hard thing to earn from family and friends, let alone trying to trust someone you just met with your life in combat. When preparing for combat a commander must train his Soldiers repeatedly with as many different elements as possible before wanting to pursue the mission in real time combat. Everyone should be able to trust each other, commanders trust subordinates and vice versa. In this scenario trust seemed to be an issue. I mention that because during Operation Anaconda we had no joint forces command at the time, so we were operating under United States Central Command (CENTCOM) and two other commands, Coalition Forces Land Component Command, (CFLCC) and Coalition Forces Air Component Command (CFACC) under that. Because of those different commands working separately one wouldn’t be able to build a true trustworthy working relationship when executing a mission. Commanders must be able to build working relationships with other entities outside of their organization to be able to affectively execute operations. Major General (MG) Hagenbeck didn’t have the chance to build a cohesive team through mutual trust because of the separation, and different commands. Because MG Hagenbeck couldn’t build a cohesive team through trust, that affected creating a shared understanding, which is the second principle of Mission Command.
Creating a shared understanding can be difficult at times, especially when dealing with outside organizations. To create this mutual understanding you must collaborate, “Collaborating is two or more people or organizations working together towards a common goal.” (ADRP 6-0, 2014) Everything is built off the first principle, mutual trust. When collaborating they must be able to build trust and respect all aspects of knowledge. Once that trust is built sharing and understanding the mission will become better to all. Being able to feed off one another’s thoughts and perspectives can help create a better game plan. Back to Operation Anaconda, everyone involved were throwing out all ideas and no one really took the time to think about the first, second, and third order of affects of the operation. They underestimated certain situations and wasn’t fully prepared for what happened. Creating a shared understanding will help clear up all questions and issues that may be up in the air, when everyone knows what to expect and what to do, you then get what we call the Commander’s Intent.
The sixth principle of Mission Command is to Provide A Clear Commander’s Intent. “The commander’s intent is a clear and concise expression of the purpose of the operation and the desired military end state that supports mission command, provides focus to the staff, and helps subordinate and supporting commanders act to achieve the commander’s desired results without further orders, even when the operation does not unfold as planned (JP 3-0).” (ADRP 6-0, 2014) In my opinion, MG Hagenbeck had a commander’s intent, but he wasn’t fully in command of everything. There were too many in charge of different situations. MG Hagenbeck was supposed to be in total charge but didn’t have command over the Special Operations Forces (SOF) Soldiers and other Afghan Soldiers. Without him having full command the intent of the operation would not go as planned, which was shown during the operation. When giving the commander’s intent it should be given face-to-face when possible. It should also be short, clear, and concise so that everyone even down to the lower echelons can understand it. I don’t believe that happened during the planning of Operation Anaconda. The commander’s intent is made for subordinates to understand and to use it to make decisions when things doesn’t always goes as planned. That’s when taking the appropriate action and to exercise disciplined initiatives kicks in.
Just like the line in the Creed of the Non-Commissioned Officer says that I will take appropriate action in the absence of orders, the fourth principle of Mission Command says the same. The fourth principle is Exercise Disciplined Initiative. The intent is given and has boundaries for subordinates to use for the mission. But when situations occur that’s not within the intent, that trust comes into play and the subordinates has the blessing to make the appropriate action when needed. I feel that it may have been hard for Soldiers to take the appropriate actions when needed during Operation Anaconda because there were so many commanders and so many people that had to bless off on certain moves that needed to get done. With MG Hagenbeck being the most senior and in command, he still didn’t have full reign to adjust as he felt he needed. Back then they didn’t have mission orders to follow and that can help considerably with conducting missions.
Use of Mission Orders is the fifth principle of the Mission Command. Mission orders are important because they can give tasks, directives, and allocate different resources as well as broad guidance. Operation Anaconda did not have any of that, I think they thought out the mission and planned it but had no specific orders to follow. Mission orders have a five-paragraph operation order (OPORDER) format. The mission order explains everything that you will need to know about the mission. It tells the tasks, commander’s intent, as well as the concept of the operations. These orders also give the subordinates the ability to make certain decisions on their own just like the prior principle. After the planning phase is over and everything is ready to execute, they must be willing to accept all risks coming.
That’s where the final principle of mission command comes into play. The sixth principle is Accept Prudent Risk. Accepting Prudent Risk is exactly what it sounds like. Once a mission is planned out and ready to be executed one must be willing to understand that there will be risks and possible casualties, even death during these missions. During Operation Anaconda no one thought that they would see the casualties and deaths that they did see. They didn’t take into consideration any risks. They felt as if it was a solid mission and they would complete it as planned and go on. I understand that their intelligence wasn’t accurate and that led to them not planning appropriately but they still didn’t acknowledge that something could go wrong during the mission. That was evident when they didn’t plan accordingly for close air support (CAS) and other things needed during the mission. I truly believe everyone learned a valuable lesson after Operation Anaconda and learned that proper planning is a must in combat.
When it comes to being in command and leading Soldiers into combat missions, proper planning is a must. The development of the Six Principles of Mission Command was and still is vital in today’s world of mission command. There’s a certain way a commander must lead and train his Soldiers, so they will be ready and hopefully be set up for success to the best of their ability. These principles have proven to be enough in planning and I’m sure they will adapt and make more changes in the future to help our military.
