Key Communication Failures That Were Exposed During Operation Anaconda

The purpose of this paper is to identify the uses and application of mission command within Operation Anaconda. Operation Anaconda took place in the Shahikot Valley of eastern Afghanistan in early March of 2002. The ground commander selected to lead the operation was Major General (MG) Hagenbeck of the 10th Mountain Division, and for the purpose of this operation, Coalition and Joint Task Force (CJTF) Mountain. Due to the limited number of troops under his command currently available in Afghanistan, MG Hagenbeck was given command in addition to one of his own organic battalions, the 3rd Brigade, 101st Air Assault Division, some Special Operations Force (SOF) units, and Coalition Forces. This paper will identify MG Hagenbeck’s, his staff’s, and higher command’s use of the mission command principles during this operation. The principles of mission command are accept prudent risk, use mission orders, exercise disciplined initiative, provide a clear commander’s intent, create shared understanding, and lastly, build cohesive teams through mutual trust (Mission Command, 2014).

The Battle of Big Hole in 1877 demonstrated well the dynamics of communication, strategy, and risk assessment in every stage of the battle, from the gathering of information to the aftermath of the slaughter. The materials of gathering intelligence, for example, can literally make or break the matter of mission completion. In this case, communication between commanders aided in U.S. Army in cutting off the path to Canada for the fleeing Nez Perce Native Americans.

The Battle of Big Hole in 1877 demonstrated well the dynamics of communication, strategy, and risk assessment in every stage of the battle, from the initial gathering of information to the aftermath of the slaughter. The materials of gathering intelligence, for example, can literally make or break the matter of mission completion. In this case, communication between commanders aided in U.S. Army in cutting off the path to Canada for the fleeing Nez Perce Native Americans.

This paper was written by Dr. Richard L. Kugler from the National Defense University, Center of Technology and National Security. Operation Anaconda was a success, but taught many lessons for modern-era force operations and defense transformation that deserves to be remembered (Kugler, 2007). Even though the battle plan was complex and sophisticated, it was not followed by the Afghan forces, which left US ground troops to do the battle alone. US forces had to replan the battle at a moment's notice.

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.

After reading assessments from various journals and articles, the operation can be deemed a success in the fact it killed the enemy in the Shah-I-Kot Valley. The major lesson learned from this operation was failure to communicate with all branches of the military involved down to the lowest level. Many of the issues experienced with this operation could have been completely avoided if Joint Force Commanders would have communicated with each other. The planning of this operation lasted for two months prior to execution. The Air Component Commander was not informed of the mission until 2 days prior. Operation Anaconda relied heavily on air support during the beginning and it failed, resulting in air power being exploited to operational limits in order support ground forces under heavy enemy fire. Two other lessons learned as mentioned in Mr. Naylor’s article were “Know your enemy” and “The eye in the sky is not all seeing” (Naylor). The size and force of the enemy was greatly underestimated and the ISR was not properly utilized when developing the intelligence for the area. Operation Anaconda presented a complex operation the military will continue to analyze in hopes of preventing future command communication and planning

General Hagenbeck receives his Intel from the U.S Official. Reports stated that enemy forces including Al Qaeda were assembling in Shahikot Valley. U.S Official did not have a good intelligence on how many enemy forces there where and what types of equipment they have. Before the battle of operation anaconda Genera Hagenbeck and his forces underestimated the enemy forces and defense. U.S forces lack the man power and fire power to and air support to complete the mission due to Afghanistan forces withdrawing and requesting air support from another commander thus General Hegenbeck and his forces did not accept the prudent risk with the

Throughout history, the United States Government and Armed Forces have learned from devastating mistakes and decisive victories making the US Armed Forces superior to most, if not all, other militaries; however, the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia throughout Operation Restore Hope, Operation Provide Relief, and the Joint Special Operations Task Force missed the mark on such “lessons learned”. The inadequate intelligence; the ignorance of tactics, techniques, and procedures; and absence of reinforcements cost needless loss of US troops, and crippling a sophisticated, well-equipped military at the hands of an under-equipped militia using irregular warfare tactics. Even 24 years later, the impact resonating still weighs heavily on minds of key leaders in the government along with all echelons of military commanders.

The military has a saying, "no matter how well you plan an operation, Murphy's Law is always going to change it." As leaders, these unexpected events are something that we have to plan for in order to manage the operational risks. The events of March 4th of 2002, on the mountain ridge of Tahkur Ghar, later known as "Robert's Ridge," are a good example of leaders who overlooked red flags of the mission and ended up being a part of one of the fiercest battles in the Afghanistan War.

Communication is the conveyance and flow of ideas from one person to another. The exchange of information takes place through letters, words, symbols and nonverbal behaviors. It involves the transmission of ideas from the sender to the receiver. Communication is effective only if the receiver fully understands the transmitted information. Many problems and failures occur in organizations due to poor communication. Objective and goals fail due to misunderstandings in the organization. Effective communication provides a chain of understanding to all participants in the organizational framework. It promotes the flow of information both vertically and horizontally.

Operation ANACONDA was a fierce and bloody battle between U.S. Special Operation Forces and al Qaeda insurgents on the Takur Ghar Mountains of Afghanistan. The operational environment, especially the terrain and lack of intelligence, played a significant role during this military engagement. According to SOF magazine, “Intelligence

For a communication to be effective, the message passed must be well understood by the party

Although Operation Anaconda was successful, with its rapid planning, lack of a unified command with an established joint force command structure over the prepositioning of air assets, ground assets, and SOF assets early in the fight it led to an ill-prepared wartime fighting

A major challenge all organizations will face is having effective communication. This is because there are numerous working parts that must coordinate with

In the business world, good communication is important for the daily operation of the company, sales, and profitability.Communication is the process of sharing information, thoughts and feelings between people through speaking, writing or body language. “Any business professional must be aware that good communication skills are acquired and learned, even if some people have a natural talent to being better communicators than others” (NISTORESCU 2). A business without good communication can cause the internal and external structure of a business to, face many more challenges and problems than it already does, ultimately, these challenges and problems can cause the business to collapse. Effective communication extends the concept to require the transmitted content to be received and understood by someone in the way it was intended. In a business, the goals of effective communication includes creating a common perception, changing behaviors and acquiring information; this is done to not only promote products boost sales, get a point across, and show others that you are better. In order to get your communication effective, you must begin with encoding