Operation Anaconda: Task and Responsibilities Organization

The issues and concerns identified during Operation Anaconda created a new perspective for task organization in the military. Operation Anaconda had many facets to their Joint Task Force (JTF) organization, which ultimately resulted in a successful mission. Single Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) Mountain involved both components and multiple service commanders; each having different roles and responsibilities in Operation Anaconda.

Elements

A JTF is an element made up of two or more military departments (JP 3-33, 2018, p. III-1 para. 1). A CJTF is generally used for military operations and involves two or more forces within a multinational and multiservice task force (Press info Press, n.d.). Many different elements were pieced together in order to create single CJTF Mountain, which was the head of Operation Anaconda. The original plan intended to have US forces support Afghan forces to be the main element (Operation Anaconda, 2005). In the middle of February, CFLCC Forward, also known as CJTF Mountain became the lead joint force command (JFC) (CMH 70-122, p. 9). The task organization structure that fell under them included the 18th Air Support Operations Group (ASOG) for the Combined Force Land Component Commander (CFLCC), Combined Air Operations Center (COAC) out of Saudi Arabia, Task Force (TF) Dagger, TF Rakkasan, TF K-BAR, TF 64, 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, and Afghan Forces (case study).

Components

Functional and service components are implemented within a CJTF in order to augment the JFC’s mission. These two types of components could be exclusively used or a combination of both to create a CJTF. Operation Anaconda utilized a combination of these two components in order to generate their task organization.

A functional component is two or more military departments utilized to perform specific operational missions for a varying amount of time (Military Factory, 2019). For example, in the case of Operation Anaconda, the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit donated assets from the USS BonHomme in order to assist with the execution of the mission, even though they were not originally tasks in the operation order (OPORD). Air assets were not part of the original request to assign task organization for Operation Anaconda. Overlooking this aspect nearly forfeited the mission since the numbers of the adversaries were much greater then anticipated.

A service component is comprised of a commander and his units and assets, to include the supporting elements; all assigned under a joint task force (Military Factory, 2019). There were numerous infantry battalions, which acted as service component players for Operation Anaconda. The roles of both the functional and service components is to fulfill their assigned tasks within a mission through coordinating with supporting agencies and commanders yet still acting within the limits set forth by the CJTF (JP 5-00, p. II-4). The commanders of these service components played a key role in Operation Anaconda.

Service Commander

The service commander has an intricate part in performing the mission of the CJTF. They are responsible for planning and executing all aspects of their portion of the operation (JP 3-33, 2018, p. III-2). Service commanders are responsible for accomplishing the operational mission, advising CJTF on task organization and command relationship, coordinating joint training, and reporting to higher any planning and logistical issues (JP 3-33, 2018, p. III-3). Although the overall mission was a success, the quick development of task organization for Operation Anaconda created challenges. The warning order (WARNO) was published on 6 January, air assets were notified on 23 February and D-day was executed on 2 March (Howard, Hukill, & Searle, 2003). This time line left very little reaction time for many service commanders to coordinate and conduct joint training as well as report and implement logistical challenges to higher.

Conclusion

Operation Anaconda had many facets to their Joint Task Force (JTF) organization. Single Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) Mountain involved both components and multiple service commanders; each having different roles and responsibilities in Operation Anaconda. This complex task organization structure molded together to successfully execute Operation Anaconda.

References

1. Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States. (1991). Joint Operations. (Joint Publication 5-00.2). Retrieved from https://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/jp-doctrine/jp5_00_2%2891%29.pdf
2. Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States. (2018). Joint Operations. (Joint Publication 3-33). Retrieved from https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_33.pdf
3. Fleri, E., Howard E., Hukill, J., & Searle, T. R. (2003). Operation Anaconda Case Study. Maxwell AFB, Alabama: College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education.
4. Headquarters, Department of the Army. Operation Enduring Freedom. (Center of Military History Publication 70-122). Retrieved from https://history.army.mil/html/books/070/70-122-1/CMH_Pub_70-122-1.pdf
5. Headquarters, United States Air Force. (2005). Operation Anaconda: An Air Power Perspective. Retrieved from https://media.defense.gov/2014/Sep/17/2001329845/-1/-1/0/anaconda%20ADA495248.pdf
6. Military Factory. (2019). Functional Component Command Definition. Retrieved from https://www.militaryfactory.com/dictionary/military-terms-defined.asp?term_id=2256
7. Military Factory. (2019). Service Component Command Definition. Retrieved from https://www.militaryfactory.com/dictionary/military-terms-defined.asp?term_id=4826
8. Press info Press. (n.d). The Combined Joint Task Forces Concept. Retrieved from https://www.nato.int/docu/comm/1999/9904-wsh/pres-eng/16cjtf.pdf