Accidental Statesman Analysis

Mission Command is the framework used by the U.S. Army to ensure key leaders receive clear direction from commanders. Clear commander’s guidance allows subordinates to make disciplined and informed decisions to best accomplish assigned tasks. Ideally, application of mission command principles ensures all elements integrate and sync actions, thus creating a shared understanding and purpose. Analysis of Major General (MG) William Garrison’s decision making during the Battle of Mogadishu demonstrates how mission command principles must be applied to gain and maintain a position of advantage during military ground operations. As commander of Task Force Ranger (TFR), MG Garrison demonstrated both successful and failed application of mission command principles. Four principles will be discussed in the

Independent of the Army and country you serve, leadership is always an important subject. There are many civilian books and military manuals talking about leadership. The United States Army divides the subject leadership in three levels. These levels are Direct Leadership, Organizational Leadership, and Strategic Leadership. In this paper, the focus will be only about the first two levels. According with you rank, you will work more in one of these levels. Because of that, most part of time there is not much interaction between higher-level leaders and lower level leaders. Despite the limited interaction between higher level leaders like Brigade commanders with the lower level leader like company commander it’s not affect a satisfactory mission accomplishment.

Lieutenant General (LtGen) Richard F. Natonski, United States Marine Corps, commanded the 1st Marine Division (1 MAR DIV), to include a Brigade and specialized units from the US Army and Iraqi Forces in support of Operation Phantom Fury to gain command and control of Fallujah, Iraq, in November 2004. He described the situation to subordinate units and directed them continuously on the ground while simultaneously assessing the mission accomplished. An excellent execution of mission command and the operations process resulted in the restoration of local government in Fallujah.

Being a leader is always a challenge, and assuming a new command is challenging. There are a lot of expectations to me as a leader. The organization has selected me to a new position, and they believe I fulfill their standards for their leaders. The organization trust and expect me to lead, develop and achieve. My superiors and subordinates have a lot of expectations. They expect me to lead them in the best way to solve our assigned missions. In my new assignment as commander of 4th Armor Brigade Combat Team (ABCT), the main critical leadership problems are the lack of cohesive teams, ethical and work standards and the level of stress. I will through analyze explain and defend my selection of critical leadership problems and apply a model for solving them, including implementing and measuring my vision as the new brigade commander.

In 2012, General Dempsey states “Mission Command is fundamentally a learned behavior to be imprinted into the DNA of a profession of arms.” The way Mission Command has evolved through the past years is indicative to the US Military adjusting to a new threat. The concept of Mission Command is not new, what is important is how General Dempsey states “Education in the fundamental principles of mission command must begin at the start of service and be progressively more challenging..” The General emphasizes the need for education at the start of the individual’s service. Additionally, this highlights the United States Army’s doctrinal adjustment to the new threat. During the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US faced an enemy whose creativity and adaptability are two of its greatest assets. The fast-paced situation changes in both of those AOs required tactical level leadership maintain the autonomy to “exercise disciplined initiative.” This type of initiative historically leads to mission success, specifically in fast-paced situations where a key to success is forcing the enemy to react.

Successful leadership on a battlefield can be measured in different ways. It is possible for a good, successful leader to lose a battle. Conversely, it is possible for an ineffective leader to win a battle, given the right circumstances. What distinguishes a successful leader from an unsuccessful one is his/her ability to oversee an operation using effective mission command. In ADP 6-0, mission command as a philosophy is defined as “as 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” (ADP, 1).

General Franks and joint planners identified various strengths in the Iraq pre-invasion planning efforts of the Joint Staff. For instance, throughout development of the Iraqi operational approach, planners recognized Saddam Hussain and the City of Bagdad as strategic Centers of Gravity (COG) as a major sources of Iraqi power and strength to the Hussain regime.5 (JP5-0, p. III-22) By comparison, Karl Von Clausewitz referred to the COG as the “the hub of all power and movement, which everything depends or the point at which all our energies should be directed.”6 (JP5-0, p. III-22) In addition, General Frank’s and planners’ operational approach acknowledged the Iraqi Army and the Republican Guard as key operational COGs targeted in pre-invasion

During 2003, General Petraeus and his soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division had no clue of the astounding role they were about to embark on. General Petraeus found the city of Mosul in complete destruction, and knew it would take a cohesive effort through mutual trust and teamwork to restore the city. The city of Mosul did not only need a complete make over, but also a regime that shared a mutual understanding as Petraeus. Lastly, with the city rebuilding changes would bring hostility and risk to the soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division. General David Petraeus was successful in Mosul, because he applied the mission command control principles of building cohesive teams, creating shared understanding, and accepting prudent risk.

In early January 2002, American intelligence received evidence of a large volume of enemy forces assembling in the Shahi Kot Valley in Eastern Afghanistan. Central Command (CENTCOM), led by General Tommy R. Franks, was directing combat operations in Afghanistan through the Coalition Forces Land Component Command (CFLCC) and Coalition Forces Air Component Command (CFACC). As the interest in assaulting the Shahi Kot Valley amplified, General Franks reached a conclusion that a U.S. tactical commander was a need in Afghanistan. The decision was to assign the 10th Mountain Division Commander, Major General (MG) Franklin Hagenbeck, as the tactical commander. In an effort to strengthen MG Hagenbeck’s command authority, CENTCOM named his headquarters Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) Mountain and gave it command and control authority over Operation Anaconda. By having command and control authority, MG Hagenbeck would encounter challenges with the command structure. The challenges of command structure were due to CJTF Mountain not having tactical control (TACON) of multiple Special Operation Forces, the Joint Special Operations Air Component (JSOAC), and friendly Afghanistan forces. These misunderstandings were resolved during the execution phase, but rectifying the command relationships prior would have avoided lost time and resources needed on enemy forces and positions. In this paper, I will identify the challenges of command structure during Operation Anaconda.

Commanders at all levels face increasingly challenging scenarios as the operational environment changes. Some instinctively motivate and empower their subordinates to think and act independently, thereby influencing actions during combat. However, those who understand the commanders' activities of mission command will influence not only subordinates, but the outcome of the battle as well. 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.1 Commanders who understood the importance of mission command was Major General Horatio Gates. General Gates at the Battle of Saratoga successfully

Deceased philosopher Bertrand Russell once said, “War does not determine who is right- only who is left”. Those left are the soldiers of the 1-502nd, specifically Bravo Company 1st plt, and the Janabi family and to a greater extent, the ever-changing global world we all live in today. The tragic events that conspired in a small Iraqi village became a microcosm of how leadership failures at every level shaped the actions of a few soldiers who committed atrocious acts. One can also see how a high operational tempo, along with prolonged violence and death, has on a person’s psyche. It is the ugly side of war that the average American citizen may not want to hear or talk about. For a soldier, it is inevitably what they train their

From the earliest recorded history, humans have waged war upon one another. To conquer and expand their empires, military leaders have experimented with hundreds upon hundreds of tactics and theories about how to wage these wars. The United States Army has refined and crafted the science of warfare and the art of leadership, designing six ‘warfighting functions’ that interrelate with each other. These warfighting functions shape the way an United States Army Officer plans for combat. The six warfighting functions are Mission Command, Movement and Maneuver, Intelligence, Fires, Sustainment, and Protection. The use of these functions can be directly related to the success of many victories the United States has seen, not only on the War level, but also for specific battles. In researching the Siege of Yorktown, it is clear to see that these warfighting functions were key to the victory of the siege. This decisive victory legitimized the then freshly founded United States of America.

The main points of this article relate to the changing nature of warfare (think terrorism and advancements in technology) and the adjustments military leaders are obliged to make. Hence, according to the article, leaders must: a) be trained in critical thinking skills; b) be "committed to life-long [and self-directed] learning"; c) be willing to take the initiative to "diagnose" their goals, needs,

US Central Command’s (CENTCOM) lack of understanding the operational environment led to a poor definition of the problem. The key to understanding the operational environment is the ability to describe the current and desired operational environment. (JPiii8). CENTCOM’s planning did reflect a good understanding of the current operational environment. CENTCOM understood the influences Iraq’s current political structure

The Old Man is an autocratic leader that can make wise decisions but refuses to take any advice from its workers. The Old Man’s behavior exhibits that he not only dislikes feedback from his workers but also treats them very poorly if they make a mistake or argue with him. The autocratic leadership style can be effective in some matters where the leader doesn’t requires any feedback from the workers but in the long run it demoralizes the workers and also causes them to be afraid of the leader. This type of leadership style can prove inefficient, as the workers simply don’t feel involved as no attention is paid towards their feedback. This is an ineffective leadership style and cannot be used in modern day organizations (Vugt, et al., 2004). The feedback of the workers is important as they are the ones who do the bulk of the work. They cannot inform the leader about anything unpleasant as well as they cannot give any feedback. The Old Man is therefore using an ineffective leadership technique and it can