military because the Joint Task Force has greater potential. Importance of Having a Unified Command Structure Unity of Command In order to fully understand the importance of a unified command structure one most first understand what is unity of command. To briefly explain, unity of command means that each individual involved in incident operation will be assigned and will report to only one supervisor. Additionally, chain of command and unity of command help to ensure that clear reporting relationships exist and eliminate the confusion caused by multiple, conflicting directives. Furthermore, incident managers at all levels must be able to control the actions of all personnel under their supervision. Unity of command clears up many of the potential communication problems encountered in managing incidents or events because each individual maintains a formal communication relationship only with his/her immediate supervisor. Importance of Having a Unified Command Structure Having a unified command structure enables all responsible agencies to effectively employ incident management by establishing a common set of incident objectives and strategies. Moreover, it allows incident commanders to make joint decisions by establishing a single
COMMAND STRUCTURE DURING OPERATION ANACONDA 7 command structure at one Incident Command Post (ICP). Finally, it aids in maintaining employee/s report to only one supervisor. Conclusion From the available information regarding Operation Anaconda, it is evident that the operation was the first battle fought by America in the 21st century. As supported by Naylor (2006), it was the largest battle fought by America after Operation Desert Storm. Despite the many complexities and challenges that existed during Operation Anaconda, the U.S. Forces were able to adapt and overcome, securing the victory in the war. However, more importantly, the battle provided U.S. Forces a considerable opportunity to take a deeper look into our operational command structure, identify areas for improvement, making changes and employ these changes to our future engagements. These lessons-learned were incremental the improvement to our current command structure and are being used to educate and equip our leaders for success.
COMMAND STRUCTURE DURING OPERATION ANACONDA 8 References Davis, M. G. (2004). Operation Anaconda: command and confusion in Joint Warfare. Montgomery, Alabama: Maxwell Air Force Base. Fleri, E., Howard, E., Hukill, J., & Searle, T. R. (2003). Operation Anaconda Case Study . College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education. Alabama: Maxwell Air Force Base. Grossman, E. (2004). Was Operation Anaconda ill-fated from start? Military Medicine , Volume 169, Issue 10. Isherwood, M. W. (2007). Five Years after Operation Anaconda; Challenges and Opportunities. Military Tactics, Volume 171, Issue 6, June 2006, Pages 463–467. Naylor, S. (2006). Operation Anaconda. Journal of Military Health, Vol. 18, No. 2, Apr 2010: 7- 11. United States Air Force. (2005). Operation Anaconda. Montgomery, Alabama: Maxwell Air Force Base.
COMMAND STRUCTURE DURING OPERATION ANACONDA 9
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 9 pages?
- Fall '18
- United States Marine Corps, United States armed forces, United States Army, Special Activities Division, Military of the United States, Military organization