Army
pirito21
SSGLeonEssay.docx6
Operation Anaconda
Francisco J. Leon Padilla
Army Logistics University
SLC 92A Class 23-005
SFC Jose A. Gonzalez
06/23/2023
Operation Anaconda
Analysis
Every day, missions and operations are carried out all over the world. One was Operation Anaconda, which occurred on March 2, 2002. It was the first U.S. operation in the Shahikot valley, southeast of Afghanistan. It included 200 SOF soldiers from other nations, 400 friendly Afghan troops, and 600 U.S. troops. The Taliban and al Qaeda soldiers had assembled in this region after their prior setbacks during the first three months of the Afghanistan conflict, and Operation Anaconda aimed to eliminate them. (Kugler, 2007) The mission was scheduled to take just three days, but it took 17 days. This mission will be best understood in light of Operation Anaconda's competency, rapport, common knowledge, general's objective, controlled effort, and firm strategy.
Background
General Tommy Franks, a previous CENTCOM leader, referred to Operation Anaconda as a "total and complete triumph" in his memoirs (Franks, 2022). The mission's primary goal was to rid the valley of aggressive Taliban and al Qaeda elements. On the first day, when the enemy's resistance was greater than anticipated, this strategy fell apart. Anaconda's operation was successful between March 2 and March 18 because several hundred enemy fighters were killed, and the remaining fled. That year, the battle marked the final major engagement between U.S. forces and enemy forces in Afghanistan (Kugler, 2007). Several issues, including the initial reliance on Afghan forces and the initial intelligence estimates, were the subject of debate following the battle.
Alternatives
Competence is the capacity of leaders to direct their troops in carrying out the operation and achieving the general's goals. With Operation Anaconda, every key leader was confident in their ability to complete the task based on information from their upper echelons. All queries and issues were answered, and the combat strategy was accepted (Caruso, 2019). Each unit and the allied forces felt confident in carrying out the mission because they had clear directions.
Before Operation Anaconda, numerous successful operations in the region helped to build trust between American, allied, and Afghan forces. Based on the information provided by the Afghan National Army, U.S. forces and the Central Intelligence Agency were able to carry out decisive aerial strikes to eliminate Taliban and Al Qaeda forces. The U.S. command team could comfortably plan for Operation Anaconda thanks to their collaboration and accomplishments. Every party involved in Operation Anaconda knew their responsibilities for carrying out the mission. Most ground forces were led by the Task Force Mountain headquarters, established to secure the objective. The friendly Afghan units were to capture and eliminate the adversary, with the Air Force as a supporting element.
The given orders were concise and clear. Ground units could still adapt and overcome the operation's unexpected events because they understood the mission. Additionally, Commanders could communicate with one another through comprehension to better support the fight. Ground units could collaborate with their higher echelon to engage enemy bunkers in coordinating with aerial support. The general's aim is a succinct and unambiguous explanation of the mission's goal and the final operational condition that is intended (Caruso, 2019). Even when things don't go according to strategy, it enhances operational leadership, aids in personnel concentration, and enables junior and assisting leaders to take action to accomplish the general's intended goals without needing any more instructions. Operation Anaconda revealed this. When the operation started, the final state was clear to all forces. Units regrouped and reorganized to complete the mission when an unexpected issue arose. To reach the Commander's final state, they adapted and overcame obstacles.
Proposed Solutions
Disciplined initiative and proposed solutions are evident throughout Operation Anaconda. Because this operation had multiple engagements, important leaders had to find ways to keep the war going, keep their troops alive, and finish the mission. As the situation required, leaders took action and were reported to their higher command for further investigation. To carry on the fight and complete the mission, suggestions were considered, and modifications were made.
Acceptance of Risk: This aspect of the Principles of Mission Command was evident throughout the operation at every level. When carrying out a large-scale mission at the current operating capacity, the implied risk was present with Operation Anaconda. When the SEAL team returned to find CPO Neil Roberts after he fell off the Chinook while they were making their first landing on the peak of Takur Ghar, this principle was demonstrated (Caruso, 2019). Task Force 11 attempted to deploy a Navy SEALS reconnaissance team by helicopter at Takur Ghar, the highest peak, on March 3 at around 2:30 a.m.
When the ramp to offload the troops opened, the Chinook attempted its first landing under heavy small arms and RPG fire. CPO Neil Roberts fell off the helicopter by accident as they immediately took off. The SEALS boarded a different aircraft to return and locate CPO Neil Roberts after the Chinook escaped. They were putting their lives in immediate danger by accepting the risk of returning the SEALS. The higher command approved the SEAL team's attempt to save CPO Neil Roberts.
Recommendations
The most important lesson learned from Afghanistan was that sometimes joint action must be taken at the lowest levels. Every junior officer does not have to become an expert in the other services' doctrines just because there is jointness at lower levels. However, they must participate in planning and training for tactical level jointness to be the norm rather than the exception. As it did during Operation Anaconda, the Army should have established a joint headquarters to plan and carry out operations. Joint planning should be encouraged for the Army's use of attack helicopters. Both laser designators for targeting and additional radios are required to make communication easier (Caruso, 2019). The Army and the Air Force should work together to address the possibility that additional tactical air control parties are required.
References
Caruso, D. (2019). Operation Anaconda.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1093/ohr/ohs065
Franks, T. (2022). Georgia Military College. Operation Anaconda: Leadership Engagement Series. COL Nelson Kraft.
Kugler, R. L. (2007). Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan: a case study of adaptation in battle. NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIV WASHINGTON DC CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA463075
