In July 1943, Allied Forces launched the largest joint, combined operation of World War II to date. American, British and Canadian forces attacked the island of Sicily in an effort to gain a foothold on the European continent and protect the Mediterranean lines of communication. Although the Allies were successful in pushing the Axis powers out of Sicily, Operation Husky demonstrated that Allied forces were not adequately prepared for joint operations. In particular, and based on current doctrine for joint operations, the Allies failed to effectively utilize the principles of Mission Command and also failed to realize the full potential of the Joint Force by inadequately integrating elements of the Joint Force into a cohesive organization. …show more content…
With this backdrop, the British drew the primary role in the invasion with the Americans relegated to protecting their flank. To add confusion and lack of clarity in the plan, General Alexander did not plan for any objectives beyond the initial invasion, preferring to wait until forces were ashore. This failure of leadership on the part of Alexander and lack of decisive guidance left the field commanders without clear objectives and contributed to the mistrust of both their commander as well as each other. Guidance as simple as locate the German Army in your zone and destroy them would have contributed much to alleviate the lack of trust, at least with the higher echelon of command. As it was, joint force leadership failed to give clear guidance that, in addition to negatively contributing to issues of trust, clouded the field commanders understanding of the battlefield.
As a primary tenet of Mission Command, understanding allows the field commander to assess what is happening on the battlefield and make rapid decisions on the best way to carry out the commander’s intent. Without clear and concise guidance on objectives, opportunities to exploit advantages as they arose were lost and significant time was wasted reorienting forces to adhere to guidance that was not current based on conditions. Both General’s Eisenhower and Alexander failed to identify the objectives and
Six principles comprise the philosophy of mission command: (a) build cohesive teams through mutual trust; (b) create share understanding; (c) provide clear commander’s intent; (d) exercise disciplined initiative; (e) use mission orders; and (f) accept prudent risk. When combined together, these six principles assist the commander in balancing the aforementioned art of command and science of control. To understand how General Robert E. Lee’s performance at Gettysburg lacked the marks of a great mission commander necessitates a deeper understanding of the individual principles of mission command.
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).
Operational leaders down to the platoon and squad level have recently faced increasingly complex missions in uncertain operational environments. Accordingly, Army doctrine has shifted to officially recognize mission command, which enables leaders at the lowest level feasible to “exercise disciplined initiative” in the accomplishment of a larger mission. The operational process consists of six tenants: understand, visualize, describe, direct, lead, and assess. During the battle of Fallujah, LtGen Natonski understood the intent two levels up, visualizing courses of action for both allies and the enemy, and leading his organization into combat while directing his officers and soldiers to meet his intent. He visualized that Marines alone could not accomplish the mission. He understood that without the support of Iraqi police and a task force from the Army with
Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-0 defines mission command 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” (U.S Army, Training and Doctrine Command, Combined Arms Center, Center for the Army Profession and Ethic, 2015, p. 1). The six principles of mission command direct leaders to build cohesive teams through mutual trust, create shared understanding, provide a clear commander’s intent, exercise disciplined initiative, use mission orders, and accept prudent risk. These principles enable subordinates that understand their commander’s intent to accomplish missions by adapting to the situation and taking advantage of opportunities as they arise (U.S Army, Training and Doctrine Command, Combined Arms Center, Center for the Army Profession and Ethic, 2015, p. 2). Various battles throughout history provide examples of the application of the principles of mission command as well as the failure to adhere to them. The Battle of the Little Bighorn is an example of the latter and marks the “most decisive Native American victory and the worse U.S. defeat during the long Plains Indian War” (History.com Staff, 2009).
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).
According to Army ADP 6-0, 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 in the conduct of unified land operations (CAPE, 2012). Effective mission command can generally be analyzed according to the six principles outlined in ADRP 6-0. The six principles of mission command are to: build cohesive teams through mutual trust, create shared understanding, provide a clear commander’s intent, exercise disciplined initiative, use mission orders, and accept prudent risk (CAPE, 2012). This paper provides a brief overview of the
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
It was not until the Teheran Conference in November 1943 that the British, encouraged by the Russians, reluctantly agreed to launch a cross-channel attack, code-named Operation Overlord, in May of 1944, and to allow President Franklin D. Roosevelt to name a commander for the operation. Although both Marshall and Brooke were contenders for the appointment, both even promised it, they were passed over. Instead, all favored in the selection of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was then commanding United States forces in Europe. On January 14 1944, Eisenhower, who was now Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force, arrived in London to begin work on the final invasion plan.
Operation Verbal Image is an exercise based on command and control. It used many leaders who used command and control to accomplish their assigned mission. This command and control shaped the battlefield and took the fight to the enemy. This paper will discuss, how important command and control is, what is command and control, what does command and control do, and command and control in the information age. This paper will also discuss how command and control was used, how it affected the outcome of the battle, and my personnel opinions on how command and control could have been done differently.
The development of the allied military strategy in World War II (WWII) presented challenges for the U.S. and Great Britain as they worked together to defeat the Axis powers. First, this paper will review the environment at the time of WWII when Admiral Stark penned the “Plan Dog” memorandum and MAJ Wedemeyer’s War Defense Team put together the “Victory Plan”. Next, it will look at the advantages and disadvantages of coalition operations with supporting examples. Then, a review of two major meetings between U.S. and Great Britain will identify what strategic decisions were made and the effects they have on the war. Finally, this paper will explore the foundations of strategy (Clausewitz and Sun Tzu) by which the allied forces used and
Maj. Gen. “Fighting Joe” Hooker demonstrated an excellent example of failed mission command during the Battle of Chancellorsville in April 1863. He had thought he would defeat General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia by maneuver beginning in Chancellorsville as he pushed Lee toward Richmond. His commitment toward his own plan for Lee’s response would overshadow his operational planning and ultimately lead to a mission command failure at Chancellorsville despite outnumbering Lee’s troops 128,000 to 60,000. Through decentralized execution, Hooker could have empowered agile and adaptive leadership to operate under uncertainty, exploit opportunities, and achieve unity of effort. Instead, he failed in exercising at least four principles of mission command. He did not provide a clear commander’s intent, create shared understanding, exercise disciplined initiative, or accept prudent risk.
In any mission, the Commander is the most imperative participant. He or she guides the mission to the intended outcome. It is through the commander’s activities that the directed outcome is achieved. Through successful understanding, visualizing, describing, directing, leading and assessing the commanders of Soldiers are able to accomplish the directed mission and thus winning wars. Throughout the role of commander in the Battle of Hamburger Hill, Lieutenant Colonel Weldon Honeycutt attempted the complete these commander’s activities. (ADRP 5-0) The successes and failures of mission command he had, will be explained, giving a better understanding of the Battle of Hamburger Hill and the pivotal turning point in the Vietnam war.
As World War II progressed over the reaches of the globe, Germany had gained control over a mass percentage of Europe. The Allies, a group of nations opposed to the power of the Central powers, proposed to carry out a plan to quickly bring an end to the bloody expanse of Nazi Germany. The Allies considered to unleash an invasion on France across the famous English Channel and into the midst of German-occupied land called Operation Overlord. Generals Eisenhower of the United States military and General Bernard Montgomery of the British forces were the main military personnel behind the creation of the Operation Overlord and its important initiative. On the date of June 6, 1944, one of the largest and most important military invasions occurred in mankind’s
Operation Husky ( July 9- August 17 1943) Essay By:Kiyara Invasion beach Operation Husky - sector 8th Army. Civilians celebrating with British soldiers Operation Husky the invasion of Sicily Operation Husky was the invasion and the capture of Sicily by the Allied forces.
Operation Overlord (D-Day), the invasion of Normandy was a very intense and bloody day for all allies included in this battle. Forces from the United Kingdom, Canada and France made up a majority of the main forces alongside the United States, also with participants from around the world. For the forces of France, this battle would prove to be very emotional as it was an effort for trying to take back their homeland. General Eisenhower, commander of this mission had a hoped that having Germany attacked on two sides would expend their forces and allow the war to be won