1

Thunder Run in Baghdad 2003: A Mission Analysis

SSG Sharese D Hodge

SLC 92A Class 23-006

Army Sustainment University

22 August 2023

Thunder Run in Baghdad 2003: A Mission Analysis

Inside the archives of military history are cases where mission command principles had a critical impact in directing military operations to success. One such case happened during the 2003 intrusion of Iraq when the capture of Baghdad was the key part of finishing the Iraq War and overcoming Saddam Hussein. This study digs into the Thunder Run operations carried out in Baghdad, explicitly Thunder Run I and II, to examine how mission command principles were applied. These principles envelop different perspectives like building cohesive teams via common trust, creating shared understanding, providing a clear commander’s intent, practicing disciplined initiative utilizing mission orders, and accepting prudent risk, guided decision-making and execution in the face of uncertainty, intricacy, and risk. This mission analysis will reveal insight into how every one of these principles was utilized at different phases of the operations and how they added to the triumph of the mission.

Mission Analysis

Building Cohesive Teams through Mutual Trust

Colonel Perkins, the leader of the second Brigade, Third Infantry Division (Spartans), exhibited the significance of building strong groups through shared trust. Even with the vulnerability encompassing the metropolitan fight in Baghdad, Perkins confided in the skill of his staff and subordinate commandants. This trust framed the bedrock of common regard and certainty that empowered the group to work effectively, notwithstanding the risk. The trust among leaders and their soldiers cultivated a climate where people depended on each other, improving the unit’s cohesion. Furthermore, Blount and Wallace’s confidence in Lieutenant Colonel Schwartz and their swift activities to help the engaged forces added to the successful outcome of the subsequent Thunder Run. This example highlights the significance of building shared trust inside military groups. Cohesive groups based on trust are stronger, versatile, and fit, making efficient choices in high-stress conditions.

Creating Shared Understanding

In the mission preparation before Thunder Run I, Colonel Perkins made a mindful attempt to make a shared understanding among his soldiers. He plainly expressed the mission’s goals and underscored the meaning of netting key territory in Baghdad (Wright, 2013). This mutual perspective at all levels of the organization guaranteed that each fighter fathomed the mission’s objectives and their role inside it. The shared understanding additionally empowered decentralized decision-making as troopers on the ground knew how their activities added to the general mission.

Providing a Clear Commander’s Intent

Colonel Perkins gave a clear leader’s intent during the mission briefing. He outlined the mission goals, underscoring the significance of capturing key territory and the enemy’s fortress. This clearness permitted subordinate leaders and troopers to grasp the reason for the mission. It also enabled them to pursue informed choices aligned with the leader’s intent, even amidst serious battles. The commander’s plan for the subsequent Thunder Run was unambiguous: seize and, if conceivable, hold key terrain in the city (Wright, 2013). This intent was imparted down the leadership hierarchy, guaranteeing that all elaborate units grasped the extensive strategic goal.

Major General Blount and Lieutenant Colonel Schwartz, Team 1-64 Armored Regiment (AR) commandant, teamed up closely to foster a common perspective of this intent. The mission orders given by Major General Blount accentuated the significance of accomplishing this objective quickly and effectively. As Schwartz arranged his regiment team for the mission, the emphasis stayed on the overarching intent: seize and hold key terrain. This clear intent directed the team structure, the selection of resources, and the strategic choices made during the activity.

Exercising Disciplined Initiative

The rule of the disciplined initiative was apparent during Thunder Run I. Colonel Perkins confided in his subordinate commandants to execute their mission orders with adaptability and versatility. The confidence in their capacity to enhance on-the-spot choices allowed for a quick reaction to changing war zone conditions. Subordinate leaders practiced disciplined initiative by changing strategies and methodologies depending on the situation, guaranteeing the mission’s success. As the thunder run proceeded, it became clear that the enemy forces were scattered without a coordinated defensive system. In this turbulent and capricious metropolitan climate, subordinate leaders had to practice disciplined initiative. They needed to adjust to quickly evolving conditions, pursue critical choices, and immediately take advantage of opportunities on the spot. Staff Sergeant Diaz’s tank crew’s choice to forsake their immobilized tank greatly represented disciplined initiative (Wright, 2013). They perceived the criticalness of the circumstance and made a move, focusing on the security of the group and the mission’s general accomplishment over rescuing the vehicle. This ability to adjust and make difficult decisions during the most intense battle was crucial for the mission’s advancement.

Using Mission orders

Before the thunder run, Perkins gave clear and brief mission orders to Lieutenant Colonel Schwartz, the Task Force commanding officer (TF) 1-64 Armored Regiment (AR). Perkins framed the mission goals, the course to be taken, and the general intent of getting key terrain in Baghdad. These mission orders furnished TF 1-64 with an exhaustive comprehension of their job in the activity and the ideal end state. The mission orders likewise underlined the significance of speed and accuracy. The goal was not exclusively to arrive at the downtown area but to do so quickly while assessing enemy defenses. Perkins entrusted subordinate commanders like Lieutenant Colonel Schwartz with the power to execute the mission inside the extensive structure of the commandant’s intent.

Accepting Prudent Risk

Colonel Perkins acknowledged prudent risk during Thunder Run II, perceiving the critical significance of getting key terrain in Baghdad. Regardless of the likely risks, he considered the mission’s goals vital. His choice to continue with carefully thought out plans of action, including composed blasts and smoke screens, exhibited an eagerness to acknowledge the prudent risk in the quest for the mission’s success. Also, another huge difficulty during the Thunder Run was the restricted knowledge accessible to the team. The absence of detailed data on enemy positions and expectations put the mission at a higher risk.

Nonetheless, Colonel Perkins and his subordinate administrators perceived the significance of the mission and acknowledged prudent risk. The choice to continue with the thunder run, notwithstanding the absence of comprehensive intelligence, showed their obligation to accomplish the mission’s goals. They gauged the likely risks against the strategic significance of swiftly capturing key terrain in Baghdad. This readiness to acknowledge carefully thought-out action plans was crucial in progressing in a complicated and dubious metropolitan battle.

Conclusion

The Thunder Run tasks during the 2003 Iraq intrusion clearly show the viability of mission command principles. Through cohesive groups based on trust, mutual understanding, and clear commander’s intent, the achievement was accomplished even with intricacy. The disciplined initiative engaged versatile decision-making, while mission orders gave a strategic framework. Prudent risk acknowledgment highlighted the mission’s critical nature. These principles signal military history, uncovering their paramount significance in exploring uncertainty and danger. The Thunder Runs embody how mission command principles, bridging trust to weigh out a course of action carefully, are essential to winning in present-day fighting’s complex battlespaces.

Reference

Wright, D. P., (2013). 16 Cases of Mission Command (2nd ed.). Combat Studies Institute Press, US Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.