Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
The United States Operation Anacondas Analysis
Taking a retrospective look at the Afghan War, one may claim with a sufficient amount of certainty that the U.S. lost in its attempt at promoting democracy and human rights policies in Afghanistan. Indeed, most reports concede that the devastating war did not yield any positive results, especially in light of the recent developments, particularly, the 2021 takeover of the state by the Taliban (Jail et al., 2021). However, some of the earlier missions completed during the War in Afghanistan by the U.S. army indicated that success could have been possible. Particularly, Operation Anaconda led to strong hopes flaring up due to the stellar accomplishment of the key goals. Although Operation Anaconda entailed several casualties and losses for the U.S. Army, having taken place in a strategically and tactically challenging location, the application of seven mission command principles allowed the U.S. troops to triumph eventually.
While each of the seven mission command principles played an enormous role in supporting the U.S. troops and bringing them to triumph, it was a high-risk acceptance that determined the success of the campaign from the very start. Indeed, delving into the nuances of how Operation Anaconda started, one must mention that significant extraneous obstacles emerged at the very start of the mission as the expected support in Afghanistan turned out to be exceptionally underwhelming (Farkas, 2018). Specifically, the existing records mention that enemy resistance proved fiercer than originally anticipated and friendly Afghan forces failed to carry out their march into the valley, thereby leaving deployed U.S. infantry forces to face the enemy alone (Kugler, n.d., p. 1). Therefore, by accepting risks and revisiting the main strategy to align it with the new context, the U.S. Army commander showed impressive resilience that would lead the troops to victory.
However, even with the troops having quickly become adjusted to the changes in the target environment, winning a battle may remain an unattainable objective. To ensure that the key goals are accomplished, a commanders intent is crucial. In Operation Anaconda, Franklin Hagenback, the leader and strategist, determined the victory by demonstrating an unambiguous intent that all soldiers recognized, understood, and followed precisely. Namely, the existing accounts of the events mention that, despite the drastic lack of good intelligence, which became evident early in the development of Operation Anaconda, Hagenback was strongly determined to win: Confronted with this uncertainty, U.S. officials did their best to generate estimates of the enemys strength (Kugler, n.d., p. 6).
Unfortunately, shared understanding and, therefore, mission orders were not the strongest assets of the operation, which reduced the chance of success for Operation Anaconda substantially. Specifically, when considering the main characteristics of the operation, the multi-modal nature of its leadership emerges first as the most accurate descriptor of the mission. Namely, Kugler (n.d., p. 7) recalls that At the time Operation Anaconda began, unity of command had not been established because the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan was not yet fully mature. The presence of multiple leaders and strategies that did not agree caused significant confusion, leading to misunderstanding and numerous instances of miscommunication (Laub, 2014). As a result, the essential goals of the operation were largely obscured.
Arguably, the lack of consistency in the process of commanding and the management of the key objectives makes the eventual triumph of the troops participating in the operation even more impressive. However, the presence of incongruences in the leadership framework indicated that the U.S. army required significant improvements, particularly, in the leadership and management department. Specifically, the focus on unity and collaboration could be seen as the product of a poor leadership framework that could not provide the foundation for a proper governance approach and, therefore, delineate the extent of each leaders influence on the project and its implementation. For instance, the fact that Hagenbeck was not granted command over the U.S. air component forces complicated the process of choosing an appropriate battle tactic even more difficult due to the inability to observe the situation from all available angles and establish stronger control over the fight (Kugler, n.d., p. 8). The resulting miscommunication and the failure to investigate the target set properly to avoid any possible complications, including the failure to recognize the issues related to the target landscape and environment can be seen as the inevitable outcome of the described approach.
In turn, Mission orders, Discipline Initiative, and Mutual Trust as the principles of mission command in the military service as the cornerstone for facilitating the success of the troops in the target environment. Even though the discipline levels could be characterized as moderate at first, the further reinforcement of the commanding process, particularly, Hagenbecks efforts to retain the troops morale and boost their courage, served as vital steps in promoting further improvement in their performance. Specifically, Kugler (n.d., p. 12) states that Task Force Mountain selected the name Anaconda for a reason. An anaconda is a large constricting snake of the boa family that coils around its victim, thereby crushing him to death. The specified task could only be performed successfully in an environment where complete cohesion and coordination in the actions of the participants are achieved. Therefore, the extent of discipline, while initially being quite underwhelming, proved to increase significantly over the implementation of the project.
The operation outcomes were also indicative of the high level of mutual trust and cooperation between all parties implementing the project, Remarkably, even with the lack of understanding between the U.S. troops and the resident offering initially their support, success was finally achieved (Kugler, n.d.). By encouraging the troops to support each other during the fight, as well as cooperating with residents, Hagenbeck managed to implement the plan that seemed nearly unreachable given the circumstances, namely, the mismanaged leadership and the failure to investigate the target setting beforehand. Additionally, the high rates of the troops performance and their ability to perform the key stages of the operation successfully showed that they had mutual trust for each other and a clear and mutually shared understanding of the end goal. Even though the specified stage of operation development was not present at the beginning and was, instead, developed in the course of the fight, it showed impressive resourcefulness, high morale, and strong ethical values in the troops and the commander.
The integration of seven command mission principles has helped the U.S. Army defeat the enemy during Operation Anaconda and complete every part of the mission successfully despite several essential obstacles that jeopardized the entire campaign. Although the American troops were significantly disadvantaged tactically due to poor knowledge of the area, the commanders strong grip on the communication process and the clarity of the key commands along with the support of the troops morale allowed the U.S. Army to triumph in the battle. Therefore, Operation Anaconda serves as the primary example of a plan implemented despite all odds due to the proper tactical framework and strong ethical values of all those involved.
References
Farkas, S. (2018). Airpower in counterinsurgency. Honvédségi SzemleHungarian Defence Review, 146(1), 175-183.
Laub, Z. (2014). The Taliban in Afghanistan. Council on Foreign Relations, 4(7), 1-9.
Jain, B., Bajaj, S. S., Noorulhuda, M., & Crews, R. D. (2021). Global health responsibilities in a Taliban-led Afghanistan. Nature Medicine, 27(11), 1852-1853.
Kugler, R. (n.d.). Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan: A case study of adaptation in battle. Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Forces Transformation and Resources.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.