DRAFT APA PAPER NEEDED

March 19th, 2003 the invasion of Iraq began, major combat operations started lasting several weeks knocking out power, running water, or waste removal. Buildings and stores in ruins, universities empty, all economic activity halted with key leaders fleeing and going into hiding. Government faculties and ministries, anyone associated with the ruling Baath Party were either imprisoned or on the run. In April of 2003 Major General Petraeus and the 101st Airborne Division entered the city of Mosul, Iraq with orders to secure the city and address the destruction that the city was in. Addressing these issues was not standard military operating procedure, but it is not something Major General Petraeus was going to shy away from. He and his staff met with key leaders of the Mosul community and established terms and agreements on whom to elect and what ranked most important as far as re-building. After realizing his primary role Major General Petraeus had to prioritize the things with little help from the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance) ORHA, “an interagency organization established to manage postwar reconstruction, governance and assistance in Iraq” (2006, 12). With the lack of resources and support Major General Petraeus and his subordinates brought back a form of normalcy to the city of Mosul by facilitating a shared understanding of the situation, mission, and intent.

ADRP 6-0, The Mission Command Warfighting Function, published in 2012, nine years after Major General Petraeus tackled the leading role of establishing normalcy within the city of Mosul. “The Mission Command philosophy 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 operation” (2012, 4). According to Army Doctrine 6-0 commanders follow six principles in exercising mission command. The first being, build cohesive teams through mutual trust. This principle encompasses commanders, subordinates, and partners. Mutual trust is earned not given and is tested constantly with actions, encounters, and conversations. Commanders and subordinates gain this trust from partners by living the Army values and leadership principle, the partners by upholding their word and actions. The second principle is to create a shared understanding, not just of the situation but environment, purpose, problems and how to solve them. This shared understanding, built upon, and maintained through trust, helps the commanders have a better understanding of the situation. The third, provide a clear commander’s intent, clear and concise description of the operation and end state given to subordinates, partners, and staff. In knowing the commander’s intent everyone involved can achieve the goal without further guidance or orders from higher. Fourth, exercise disciplined initiative, this when the situation changes making the initial plan and orders obsolete. Commanders and subordinate understand the end state taking the initiative to achieve the mission. The Fifth, use mission orders, directives emphasized to subordinates the end state, not the actions taken to achiever the end state. The commanders give the mission, giving guidance and direction, the main objective, and resources, giving subordinates the freedom of action to accomplish the mission. Lastly, accept prudent risk; it is the commander’s decision to determine if the mission is worth the loss of personnel or equipment. Prudent risk is fundamental to mission command, minimize hazards and calculate the risks as much as possible before execution.

Major General Petraeus realized in these situations’ some orders come out immediately while others could wait. He and his subordinates had the rigorous task of determining what needed attention immediately and what could wait. Major General Petraeus determined establishing a government was the first order of business and get key leaders of the community was of the greatest importance. Major General Petraeus and his staff had the task of setting up the meetings and very diligently converse with key leaders of the diverse community of Mosul which include; Arabs, Kurds, Turkoman, Assyrian Christian, and several tribes. All the while fighting between this diverse community increased, leaving Major General Petraeus to send his troops out to maintain law and order.

Major General Petraeus struggled in getting ORHA to take any kind of lead in the dealings with the elections and re-building of the city as well as law-enforcement. The city had no amenities; water, electricity, garbage removal. Stores closed, buildings and factories demolished. Old political and economic leaders had vanished, schools and colleges closed. Major General Petraeus had to establish all of this with criticism from outsiders not willing to do the job themselves. His conversations and agreements to restore trade with Syria to get the stores and jobs for the civilian populous needed to begin immediately. His priority was getting things back in working order and the success of electing a caucus and getting an experienced, competent, and well-respected governor in place seemed to get increasingly difficult.

The operations process was simple, Major General Petraeus understood the task at hand, he visualized the outcome, the hard part would be to direct and lead his subordinates throughout this operation. His command direction changed for the troops of the 101st Airborne Division, moving from combat operations to aid and assist of the Iraqi people. Major General Petraeus described the change of directive so his subordinates had a shared understanding of the situation, mission, and intent. While his troops were conducting security patrols and building election boxes for the upcoming elections Major General Petraeus was meeting with leaders of the community building mutual trust in their tasks within the elections and how to re-build their city. Provide a clear commander’s intent, orders passed down to the troops and the leaders to execute the mission properly within the commander’s intent. Once the orders were passed down the Generals subordinance took initiative to help the local populous with some commanders going as far as advertisement like “What have you done to win Iraqi hearts and minds today” (2006, 49). Once the semi-formal government in place, the re-building began. Major General Petraeus set out to implement a new Iraqi army, improve public works, restore fuel distributions and overall quality of life for the Iraqi people.

Despite all the trials and tribulations Major General Petraeus faced with ORHA and local tribes, he and his subordinates were able to return a shred of normalcy to a city in shambles and provide them with the building blocks to begin again by facilitating a shared understanding of the situation, mission, and intent, not only with his subordinates but also members of the Mosul community. By implementing the six principles of mission command Major General Petraeus was successful in establishing a form of democracy, re-establish trade and employment for the citizens of Mosul.

References

Department of the Army Headquarters. Mission Command, Mission Command1–56 (2012). Washington, DC.

Gordon, M. R. (2003, September 4). The struggle for Iraq: Reconstruction; 101st Airborne Scores Success in Northern Iraq. The New York Times Section A, page 1. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/04/world/struggle-for-iraq-reconstruction-101st-airborne-scores-success-northern-iraq.html

Harvard Kennedy School. (2006). Accidental Statesman General Petraeus Case Study. Accidental Statesman General Petraeus Case Study. Retrieved from https://www.hks.harvard.edu

Petraeus, D., & Washington Post. (2015, September). For Mosul, learning from 2003. Retrieved October 6, 2019, from https://www.stripes.com/opinion/for-mosul-learning-from-2003-1.423859.