MG Natonski provide a clear Commander’s Intent by keeping his simple and nested with the higher headquarters’ intent. MG Natonski understood LTG Sattler’s mission statement and his role in achieving it. LTG Sattler’s mission to MG Natonski was: “…attack to destroy anti-Iraqi forces"4 He clearly and concisely explained what this means to 1 MAR DIV and his Joint Task Force in three elements. “1) Eliminate insurgent sanctuary, 2) Set the conditions for local control, and 3) Support MNF-I effort to secure approaches to Baghdad.”5 MG Natonski’s intent included his expectations for the mission and its end state, while being nested with the division intent to destroy anti-Iraqi forces. He understood that if Fallujah fell then the main MSR to Baghdad
…show more content…
LTG Sattler the 1 MEF commander gave MG Natonski the mission “attack to destroy insurgents within Fallujah” and in turn gave him the freedom to make this happen without micromanaging. In turn, MG Natonski allowed the same standard for his subordinate leaders. Since TF 2-2 and TF 2-7 commanders were subject matter experts on the capabilities and limitations of their assets, they were able to better allocate assets. Using disciplined initiative to problem solve and better task organize the armored companies. More importantly as the different task force leaders identified a problem they didn’t just back brief MG Natonski, but they explained what their plan was to mitigate the issues. NEED TO ADD MORE TO THIS …show more content…
It took 10 days for MG Natonski’s joint task force to defeat the enemy forces and regain control of the city, killing or capturing over 3000 insurgents. They secured the main MSR highway 10, which helped support the overall MNF-I mission. The full spectrum joint task force pushed forcefully though the city with a high operation tempo to ensure the embedded enemies would be destroyed and unable to call in reinforcements. Isolation, integrated operations including use of information operations to shape the battle field and minimizing collateral damage shaped the battlefield for follow on stability operations. By minimizing collateral damage, the Iraqi view of U.S. forces changed dramatically. Before Operation Phantom Fury the Iraqi people saw the U.S. as murderers who didn’t care about civilians or their cultural views. By the end of this operation their view hand changed, which in turn helped when the U.S. turned the city back over to local control. The key to success for Operation Phantom Fury, was MG Natonski’s early identification of armed reinforcements, understanding capabilities and limitations. His clear commander’s intent allowed for his subordinate leaders to be adaptable to the increased threat in their Area of Operations. This created a waterfall effect teamwork, shared understanding, and a clear commander’s intent enabled adaptable leaders
LTG Sattler the 1 MEF commander gave MG Natonski the mission “attack to destroy insurgents within Fallujah” and in turn gave him the freedom to make this happen without micromanaging. In turn, MG Natonski allowed the same standard for his subordinate leaders. Since TF 2-2 and TF 2-7 commanders were subject matter experts on the capabilities and limitations of their assets, they were able to better allocate assets. Using disciplined initiative to problem solve and better task organize the armored companies. More importantly as the different task force leaders identified a problem they didn’t just back brief MG Natonski, but they explained what their plan was to mitigate the issues. NEED TO ADD MORE TO THIS …show more content…
It took 10 days for MG Natonski’s joint task force to defeat the enemy forces and regain control of the city, killing or capturing over 3000 insurgents. They secured the main MSR highway 10, which helped support the overall MNF-I mission. The full spectrum joint task force pushed forcefully though the city with a high operation tempo to ensure the embedded enemies would be destroyed and unable to call in reinforcements. Isolation, integrated operations including use of information operations to shape the battle field and minimizing collateral damage shaped the battlefield for follow on stability operations. By minimizing collateral damage, the Iraqi view of U.S. forces changed dramatically. Before Operation Phantom Fury the Iraqi people saw the U.S. as murderers who didn’t care about civilians or their cultural views. By the end of this operation their view hand changed, which in turn helped when the U.S. turned the city back over to local control. The key to success for Operation Phantom Fury, was MG Natonski’s early identification of armed reinforcements, understanding capabilities and limitations. His clear commander’s intent allowed for his subordinate leaders to be adaptable to the increased threat in their Area of Operations. This created a waterfall effect teamwork, shared understanding, and a clear commander’s intent enabled adaptable leaders