By Order of the Secretary of the Army:

MARK A. MILLEY

General, United States Army

Chief of Staff

Offcial:

U.S. Army Engineer School

(573) 563-8080/DSN 676-8080

COMMANDANT

BG James H. Raymer 

563-6192

<james.h.raymer.mil@mail.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL Jason L. Smallfeld

563-6192

<jason.l.smallfeld.mil@mail.mil>

DEPUTY COMMANDANT

Mr. James R. Rowan

563-4363

<james.r.rowan4.civ@mail.mil>

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR

CSM Bradley J. Houston

563-8060

<bradley.j.houston.mil@mail.mil>

REGIMENTAL CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER

CWO5 John F. Fobish

563-4088

<john.fobish.mil@mail.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–USAR

COL Kenneth Z. Jennings 

563-8045

<kenneth.z.jennings.mil@mail.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–ARNG

LTC Bryan M. Carr 

563-8046

<bryan.m.carr4.mil@mail.mil>

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC Geoffrey R. Van Epps

563-7116

<geoffrey.r.vanepps.mil@mail.mil>

COMMANDER, 1ST ENGINEER BRIGADE

COL Heather J. Warden

596-0224, DSN 581-0224

<heather.j.warden.mil@mail.mil>

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT

COL Kevin S. Brown

563-4093

<kevin.s.brown28.mil@mail.mil>

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION

Mr. Robert F. Danner

563-2845

<robert.f.danner.civ@mail.mil>

COUNTER EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS CENTER

COL Charles G. Phillips 

563-8142

<charles.g.phillips.mil@mail.mil>

ASSURED MOBILITY BRANCH, MSCoE CDID, RDD

LTC Larry J. Lyle Jr.

563-5055

<larry.j.lyle.mil@mail.mil>

ENGINEER DOCTRINE, MSCoE CDID, CODDD

LTC Sally C. Hannan

563-2717

<sally.c.hannan.mil@mail.mil>

ORGANIZATION BRANCH, MSCoE CDID, CODDD

LTC Leonard B. Scott IV

563-6282

<leonard.b.scott.mil@mail.mil>

Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is published three times 

a year by the U.S. Army Engineer School and the Maneuver 

Support Center of Excellence G-37 Publications, Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri. 

Articles to be considered for publication are due

1 December, 1 April, and 1 August. Send submissions

by e-mail to <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.engineer

@mail.mil>, or send an electronic copy in Microsoft® 

Word on a compact disk and a double-spaced copy of 

the manuscript to Engineer Professional Bulletin, 14010 

MSCoE Loop, Building 3201, Suite 2661, Fort Leonard 

Wood, MO 65473-8702. Due to regulatory requirements 

and the limited space per issue, we normally do not print 

articles that have been published elsewhere.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Engineer 

Professional Bulletin, 14010 MSCoE Loop, Building 3201, 

Suite 2661, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473-8702.

CORRESPONDENCE, letters to the editor, manuscripts, photographs, offcial unit requests to receive copies, and unit address changes should be sent to Engineer

at the preceding address. Telephone: (573) 563-4137, 

DSN 676-4137; e-mail: <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx

.engineer@mail.mil>; Web site:<http://www.wood.army.mil

/engrmag/>.

DISCLAIMER: Engineer presents professional information designed to keep U.S. military and civilian engineers 

informed of current and emerging developments within their 

areas of expertise for the purpose of enhancing their professional development. Views expressed are those of the 

authors and not those of the Department of Defense or its 

elements. The contents do not necessarily refect offcial 

U.S. Army positions and do not change or supersede information in other U.S. Army publications. The use of news 

items constitutes neither affrmation of their accuracy nor 

product endorsement. Engineer reserves the right to edit 

material submitted for publication.

CONTENT is not copyrighted. Material may be reprinted 

if credit is given to Engineer and the author.

OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION is targeted to all engineer 

and engineer-related units.

PERSONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS are available for $24.00 

($33.60 foreign) per year by contacting the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, MO 

63197-9000.

ADDRESS CHANGES for personal subscriptions should 

be sent to the U.S. Government Printing Offce at the above 

address.

GERALD B. O’KEEFE

Administrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army

1534401
E R

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Brigadier General 

 James H. Raymer

03 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major 

 Bradley J. Houston

04 Show the Way

By Chief Warrant Offcer Five

 John F. Fobish

29 Engineer Writer’s Guide

43 Engineer Regiment Resource

 Menu

44 Engineer Doctrine Update

52 Book Review: Henry Kissinger 

 On China

Reviewed by Staff Sergeant William

 W. Greer

MANAGING EDITOR

Diana K. Dean

EDITOR

Rick Brunk

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Jennifer Morgan

Editorial Assistant

Cynthia S. Fuller

COMMANDANT

Brigadier General James H. Raymer

Volume 46 PB 5-16-1 Headquarters, Department of the Army January–April 2016

NGINEE

U.S. ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

January–April 2016 Engineer 1

Front cover: Top –Soldiers from the 501st, 310th, and 

341st Engineer Companies hook up bridge components 

to a Chinook helicopter during Operation River Assault 

2015 at Fort Chafee, Arkansas.

Left–A Soldier from the 74th Multirole Bridge Company, 

2d Combat Aviation Brigade, operates a small boat as 

three UH-60 Black Hawks fy over in Yeoju, South Korea.

Middle–A combat engineer with the 402d Engineer 

Company, U.S. Army Reserves, places a feld expedient 

Bangalore torpedo during an in-stride breach event at 

Fort McCoy, Wisconsin.

Right–U.S. Army Reserve Soldiers with 2d Platoon, 

323d Engineering Clearance Company, prepare for a 

route clearance mission at the Combat Support Training 

Exercise at Fort McCoy.

Back cover: U.S. Army photo.

FEATURES

06 Licenses and Certifcations: Expanding and Verifying Profes-

 sional Excellence in the Engineer Regiment

 Compiled by the Department of Instruction, U.S. Army Engineer 

 School

15 You Just Got Your Project Management Certifcate ―Now What?

By Captain Gaetano K. Simeti

16 Professional Credentialing at the Unit Level: 3d Infantry Division

 Shows One Way for Army Engineers to Succeed

By Lieutenant Colonel R. Daren Payne and Major Michael D. Steele

19 Way Ahead for Engineer Leaders: Credentials Certify Experience

 and Knowledge

By Captain Katherine A. Huffmyer

21 Strong Europe: Strong Engineer Enablers

By Major Kenneth R. Jones and Captain Christopher R. Elam

24 Strong Europe: Stronger Through NATO 

 By Mr. Joseph Copeland 

26 The Engineer Training Support Battalion: Training Our Regiment

 By Lieutenant Colonel Gerald S. Law

30 Lines of Engineer Support: A Guide for Success in Any Situation

 By Captain Garrett D. Anderson

32 Leveraging Capabilities: Integrating Allied Engineers Into a

 Brigade Engineer Battalion

By Captain Jeffrey R. Rickard

36 Military Personnel Exchange Program: Unique Experience for 

 Army Engineers

By Major Mark R. Allen

38 Multitool Training Unit: Company B Teaches a Wide Array of

 Engineer Skills

By Captain Andrew G. L. Taylor, First Lieutenant Daniel C. Sherman,

 and Staff Sergeant Jared S. Wenzel

42 Sky Soldiers Provide Opposition Force for Exercise Trident 

Juncture

 By First Lieutenant John T. Perry

47 Builders and Thinkers: The 307th Brigade Engineer Battalion in

 Operation Inherent Resolve

By Lieutenant Colonel Patrick J. Sullivan

50 Wearing Two Hats As an Engineer Platoon Leader

By First Lieutenant Cody D. Ikkala
2 Engineer January–April 2016

 

Clear the Way

Brigadier General James H. Raymer 

Commandant, U.S. Army Engineer School

T

he new Army Operating Concept 

defnes mobility as “the capability that permits military forces 

to gain positions of relative advantage, 

conduct high-tempo operations, and concentrate combat power against decisive 

points while operating dispersed across 

wide areas.” Mobility is mentioned in various places in the concept, including the 

following passages: “the mobility to concentrate rapidly”; “combined arms units 

that possess the mobility, frepower, and 

protection to defeat the enemy”; “units 

possess the mobility, protection, and precision frepower that allow them to fght 

for understanding and identify opportunities to seize, retain, and exploit the 

initiative”; “forces have the mobility, protection, and frepower necessary to strike the enemy from 

unexpected directions”; and “combined with frepower and 

protection, mobility at the tactical level allows Army units 

to gain positions of relative advantage and overmatch the 

enemy in close combat.”1

Though outdated as offcial doctrine, Field Manual 

5-101, Mobility, contains the factual statement, “U.S. forces 

must be prepared to fght under the most severe of these 

environments as well as under conditions created by terrorism, unconventional warfare, or minor conventional conTo win the next war, U.S. forces must be able to move 

decisively in all directions without loss of momentum. They 

must also analyze and acquire targets quickly and precisely 

to maintain this momentum. To do this, proper mobility 

planning is essential.”2

The Army Operating Concept advises that “Thinking 

clearly about future armed requires consideration 

of threats, enemies, and adversaries, anticipated missions, 

emerging technologies, opportunities to use existing capabilities in new ways, and historical observations and lessons learned.”3

Are we accurately considering the threats, anticipating the missions, and looking at historical operations to 

provide assured mobility to the combined arms team in the 

decisive-action environment? The Battle of Kursk in July 

1943 provides some insights to threats to mobility and 

anticipated missions in a decisive-action environment, as 

learned frsthand by the German army. 

“There were so many minefelds, 

and with their layouts so often overlapped . . . many of 

these were ‘box mines’ in wooden casings . . . they also had the advantage of 

being undetectable by standard minesweeping equipment. Clearing such 

a feld too often meant probing the 

ground with bayonets. As a deterrent 

to prospective heroes, the minefelds 

also included improvised -

ing devices based on a mine linked 

to several gasoline bombs,”4 and “not 

until 4:00 p.m. was the [Leibstandarte] division headquarters suffciently 

satisfed to report success after ‘bitter 

fghting.’ And that success was highly 

contingent on the ability of specialist 

pioneers to throw stable bridges over the Psel [River] during the night.”5

On Leyte Island in the Philippines from 1944 to 1945, 

forced-entry operations followed by intense fghting to clear 

the enemy found that “advancing infantry suffered long 

waits, sometimes under mortar and artillery fre, while 

engineers repaired bridges for tanks and checked for mines. 

There were never enough engineers.”6 After action reviews 

of the landings also noted that “It is foolish to land large 

numbers of vehicles if there are insuffcient engineers to 

maintain the roads.”7

Current operations in eastern Ukraine point to the 

requirement for the mobility of units in the defense to mitigate risk to the force. As one military expert wrote: “The 

increased availability of overhead surveillance, combined 

with massed area fres of artillery and MLRS [multiple 

launch rocket systems], has produced a new level of intensity in modern conventional combat. In theory, this should 

be to the advantage of the defense because it increases their 

awareness of offensive movement and concentration and the 

attacker is more exposed to lethal fres. However, when the 

defender is unable to conduct a maneuvering defense (due 

to a lack of heavy armor and long-range antitank guided 

missiles), light infantry in fxed positions become extremely 

vulnerable to the attacker’s (unmanned aerial vehicle) target acquisition and massed fres.”8

As we plan training and exercise scenarios, from home 

station to combat training centers and combined and joint

th f

a

o

t

i

b

s

a

g

t

a

i

t

u

a

s

f

c

i h

(continued on page 5)
 

Lead the Way

Command Sergeant Major Bradley J. Houston 

Regimental Command Sergeant Major

January–April 2016 Engineer 3

G

reetings! After passing the 

5-month mark in this position, 

I must frst say how proud I am 

of our great Regiment. I will also discuss a number of initiatives that will 

impact the Engineer Regiment and the 

entire U.S. Army. Some initiatives that 

have drawn a great deal of attention are 

the new Noncommissioned Offcer Evaluation Report (NCOER); the Select, 

Train, Educate, and Promote (STEP) 

initiatives; the reintroduction of common core instruction into the Noncommissioned Offcer Professional Development System; and the use of the One 

Army School System (OASS).

The new NCOER took effect on 

1 January 2016 as NCO evaluation 

entered a new era. Our old evaluation system proved to be 

too to allow the selection of the NCOs who were best 

suited for promotions, broadening assignments, and other 

opportunities. In effect since 1987, the old system failed to 

evaluate NCOs and identify talent using the current Army 

leadership requirements model from Army Doctrinal Publication 6-22, .

1

 I encourage leaders at every 

level to become familiar with the new evaluation system 

and give junior leaders the opportunity to attend training 

with installation trainers. Proper education, communication, and counseling will make this transition seamless as 

we usher in this new era.

The next initiative I want to highlight is STEP. The 

policy, outlined in Army Directive 2015-31, 

for Offcer ,

2

 became effective 

1 January for semicentralized promotions to staff sergeant 

and sergeant, for fscal year 2016 centralized Regular 

Army and U.S. Army Reserve sergeant frst class selection 

boards, and for the fscal year 2016 Army National Guard 

promotion cycle. The policy, which requires NCOs to attend 

required professional military education before they can 

be promoted, addresses the backlog of 14,000 NCOs who 

have not completed the required schools. It also tightens 

deferment policies to ensure that NCOs get to the required 

schools.

I recently visited Fort Knox, Kentucky, to discuss these 

initiatives with representatives from the U.S. Army Human 

Resources Command, talk with senior leaders of the 19th 

Engineer Battalion, and host a professional development 

session with battalion NCOs. I want to 

thank Command Sergeant Major Patrickson Toussaint and the entire Seahorse Battalion for being gracious hosts.

Another U.S. Army Training and 

Doctrine Command initiative is the 

addition of the common core curriculum to the Advanced Leader and Senior 

Leader Courses. After an initial conference that was attended by representatives from all Army proponent schools, 

we are well on our way to laying out a 

course map that will ensure that NCO 

education better prepares NCOs to execute their daily duties.

Coupled with this initiative is an 

effort to maximize the use of the OASS. 

In an effort to understand our regimental training enterprise, I visited the 164th Regional Training Institute (commonly referred to as the Fort Leonard 

Wood of the North), in Devils Lake, North Dakota. While 

its instructional facilities, training sites, and accommodations are frst class, what struck me most was the commitment of the cadre assigned to the institute. As we leverage 

the OASS, NCOs who have the opportunity to train there 

should know that they will receive quality instruction from 

some of the most professional cadre members that I have 

ever met. Kudos to Command Sergeant Major Alan P. 

Grinsteinner and Colonel Jackie Huber for establishing a 

climate that breeds excellence. I look forward to visiting 

other Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve training locations. I am confdent that I will fnd the same highquality, committed leadership in place.

I encourage all sergeants major to participate in the 

next Regimental Command Sergeant Major’s Quarterly 

Forum. Dates for the forum will be announced via e-mail. 

I ask for your feedback on desired topics so that we in the 

U.S. Army Engineer School can better communicate with 

all engineers.

Until next time, Essayons!

1Army Doctrinal Publication 6-22, Ar y Leadership, 

10 September 2012.

2Army Directive 2015-31, for -

, 13 August 2015.

s

t

r

h

D

a

lu

L

e

t

w

c

e

c

e

I
4 Engineer January–April 2016

Chief Warrant Offcer Five John F. Fobish

Regimental Chief Warrant Offcer 

Show the Way 

G

reetings all! As I write this, 

it has been 4 months since I 

assumed this position; every 

day has been a great experience. Working with this team of leaders has been 

awesome, and the work that is being 

accomplished on behalf of the Engineer 

Regiment is nothing short of inspirational. I am convinced that the Engineer Regiment of the future will be 

healthy and extremely competent as 

we move into the years of Force 2025 

and Beyond.

Since assuming my position, I have 

witnessed the caliber of leaders— 

commissioned offcers, warrant offcers, 

and noncommissioned offcers from all 

components—who are being trained 

here at the U.S. Army Engineer School and I must say 

that it is impressive. It is encouraging to know that the 

Regiment is flled with strong, competent young men and 

women who stand ready to support when our Nation calls.

As the Army transitions, a cascading effect that impacts 

every branch and component is taking place throughout its 

formations. One such effect within the Engineer Regiment 

is the integration of brigade engineer battalions (BEBs) 

into brigade combat teams (BCTs). This integration is 

meant to enhance engineer capabilities and the capacity of 

the BCTs to support the efforts of mission commanders to 

achieve a position of relative advantage on the battlefeld. 

Although this landpower portion of the transition is very 

important, it is not the complete answer to the capabilities challenges that we face. The other important capability required to win is found in the human dimension. This 

is the dimension where we invest in our most precious 

commodity—our personnel—with the purpose of optimizing Soldier and team performance while developing adaptive and innovative leaders to understand and operate in a 

complex environment.

The integration of BEBs will provide BCT commanders 

with the engineering assets needed to conduct a baseline 

of combat capabilities that can be augmented with specialized units from the 

echelon above brigade.1 This integration 

has a direct impact on the placement, use, 

and capabilities required of construction 

engineering technician (Military Occupational Specialty [MOS] 120A) warrant 

offcers, as they specialize in horizontal 

construction support as part of the BEB 

maneuver support effort. The geospatial engineering technician (MOS 125D) 

and engineer equipment maintenance 

(MOS 919A) warrant offcers are currently not as challenged, but they will 

also beneft from identifying the capabilities that could be required of them in 

the future. 

As we continue to transition into an 

expeditionary, deployable force with capabilities to win in 

a complex world, we must identify and describe the capabilities that will be required for us to achieve success when 

confronting the unknowns of future As the technical experts, warrant offcers must strive to support the commanders of our engineer formations as they support the mission commanders to achieve success on the battlefeld. We 

must start by educating and challenging our warrant offcers 

to be the adaptive, innovative offcers and leaders of tomorrow. To achieve this objective, I have asked senior engineer 

warrant offcers to include training developers and senior 

instructors in efforts to identify and describe the capabilities that we think would be required to support the BEBs 

and the Army in Force 2025 and Beyond. As a result, several 

working groups have been established to develop a strategy 

to build a capability within warrant offcers throughout the 

Engineer Regiment. 

There are three areas that I believe we must consider in 

order to be successful in this effort. First and foremost, we 

must determine what future capabilities will be required to 

ensure that engineer warrant offcers are successful at the 

BEB and throughout engineer formations. Considering that 

we are working with the unknown and the unknowable, we 

o

m

e

h

a

e

p

o

c

m

t

a

(

r

a

b

t

“It is encouraging to know that the Regiment is flled 

with strong, competent young men and women who 

stand ready to support when our Nation calls.”
January–April 2016 Engineer 5

can safely assume that warrant offcers will be required to 

support the BEB engineering mission in the BCTs by performing many tasks that are MOS-specifc and other tasks 

that are not. Identifying those capabilities will be critical 

as we strive to enable successful engineering support to 

mission commanders. 

Second, as we identify these capabilities, we must ensure 

that we assess the most highly qualifed individuals for entry 

into the engineer warrant offcer program so that they have 

the requisite expertise, a commensurate level of maturity, 

and the aptitude necessary to meet those future capabilities 

and challenges. They must also possess the intangible qualities that will help make them the talented leaders of character that the Army will need in the future. Finally, we must 

be certain that we enhance our institutional education by 

incorporating and, where necessary, revising the curriculum 

to include those identifed capabilities as requirements. We 

must take advantage of opportunities to obtain credentials, 

certifcations, and training-with-industry positions while 

remaining nested within the goals and direction of the Army 

Operating Concept. The end result will be an engineer warrant offcer who is capable of—

■ Expertly executing core competencies and technical skills 

 at a level expected of offcers in the profession of arms.

■ Thinking critically.

■ Anticipating and communicating mission requirements.

■ Providing a level of expertise that will enable the success 

 of the BEB, the BCT, the mission commander, and the 

 Army to win in a complex world.

 As I communicate with commanders and warrant offcers 

at the Engineer School and in the feld, I am convinced of 

the value-added expertise that engineer warrant offcers 

provide to the BEB. To ensure that we continue to provide 

that value and identify future capabilities as the BEBs stand 

up and evolve, I encourage you to participate in your future 

as our roles continue to expand to meet Army requirements. 

As your leaders are learning how to properly use you, keep 

them informed about what works and what doesn’t work. 

Relay that information back to the institution so that it can 

be captured, studied, and integrated into the curriculum to 

enhance the education program. Continue to network and 

communicate with your peers who are operating in similar 

environments to ensure commonality of use across the Engineer Regiment and the Army. 

I encourage all senior engineer warrant offcers to reach 

out to junior warrant offcers in their area of operation. Help 

them to develop their areas of technical expertise, to function 

in capacities that will broaden their experience, to mature 

as leaders, and to ensure that their commanders achieve 

mission success. After accomplishing these objectives, we 

will have capable, professional, and ethical warrant offcers 

who are the technologically agile, adaptive, and innovative 

leaders who will maintain Army capability overmatch while 

reducing logistical demands for Force 2025 and Beyond.

Until next time, Essayons.

1Army Techniques Publication 3-34.22, Engineer 

Operations—Brigade Below, 5 December 

2014.

exercises and Force 2025 maneuvers, make certain that your 

preparations accurately portray threats to the mobility of the 

force and anticipated missions to assure mobility! It is easy to 

eliminate bridging and explosive-hazard clearance from the 

mission set in training in favor of maintaining tempo. Doctrine and experience show that this omission is imprudent in 

accurately depicting the nature of the high-intensity battlefeld and in creating the demand signals for future capabilities development. Let us think clearly on this issue.

Endnotes:

1U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) 

Pamphlet 525-3-1, “The U.S. Army Operating Concept, Win in a 

Complex World,” 31 October 2014.

2Field Manual 5-101, Mobility, 23 January 1985.

3TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1.

4Dennis Showalter, and Blood: The Battle of Kursk,

Random House, New York, 2013, pp. 63–64.

5

Ibid., p. 172.

6Max Hastings, Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 

1944–45, Vintage Books, New York, 2009, p. 129.

7

Ibid., p. 130.

8Philip A. Karber, Lessons Learned RussoUkrainian War–Personal Observations (Draft), Potomac Foundation, 2015, p. 41.
6 Engineer January–April 2016

F

or the Engineer Regiment credentialing efforts to be 

successful, leaders, supervisors, and mentors must 

understand the breadth of credentials available 

to help subordinates set long-term professional development goals. This article describes the purpose and requirements of three licenses and several certifcations related 

to Engineer Regiment capabilities and missions. Although 

there are other relevant credentials, those discussed below 

are relevant to a variety of engineer military occupational 

specialties (MOSs) and grades as credentialing goals that 

are achievable when combined with complementary educational goals. Achieving any of these credentials can improve 

and validate the professional competency of U.S. Army engineers and can greatly assist in their transition following 

military service. 

It is useful to understand the differences between 

licenses and other credentials and how they are used in 

government and industry. Licenses are required by state 

laws and enforced by state licensing boards. National councils representing the various state boards establish recommended standards for education, experience, testing, and continuing professional 

development. State legislatures can adopt 

the recommended standards or change 

them, based on individual state concerns. 

States can change the scores required to 

pass the standard examinations, require 

different examinations, require or accept 

different degrees, or require more or less 

professional experience. 

States can require licenses by passing 

two types of acts—practice acts and title 

acts. Practice acts mandate the license for 

the practice of the licensed discipline and 

for the use of the title. For example, most 

states use practice acts to regulate architecture and civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering. Only licensed individuals 

can practice or approve of work in these 

Horizontal engineers with a bachelor’s degree in geology are likely candidates for a registered professional geologist license.
January–April 2016 Engineer 7

professions. Title acts mandate a license only for the use of 

a title, but not for practice of the discipline. For example, 

some states use title acts to regulate the use of the titles of 

agricultural or industrial engineer. Other licensed engineers 

(or those who are not engineers) may legally perform and 

approve work in these disciplines as long as they do not refer 

to themselves as agricultural or industrial engineers. 

States can also require an additional license to authorize the use of a title and the practice of work meeting specifc criteria. For example, civil engineers with a structural 

specialization can design the structure of buildings in most 

states but only a licensed structural engineer can design the 

structure of public schools or civic buildings in California or 

tall buildings in Illinois.

With limited exceptions, nonlicense 

credentials are not required by law. They 

are generally established and overseen by 

organizations or associations that establish common standards, procedures, or 

knowledge for a discipline or profession. 

These organizations usually have members and leaders representing many corporations and governmental agencies who 

help write and approve the standards. 

Credentials awarded by these organizations validate an individual’s ability 

to perform a job. Not all credentials are 

valuable; a credential from an organization whose only reason for existence is to 

provide credentials should be researched 

thoroughly before being trusted. Even if 

there is no legal requirement to possess a 

credential to do a certain job, having the 

right credentials can help signifcantly in 

getting a good-paying job following military service. 

Most of the exceptions where nonlicense credentials are 

required by law are government credentials that are 

required to perform certain government or governmentfunded jobs. For example, the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act is a law enacted by Congress requiring certifcation, achieved by experience and training, to perform certain acquisition-related federal government jobs in 

14 career felds. 

T

he professional engineer (PE) license is one of the 

most recognized credentials in the civilian and 

military sectors. There are legal requirements to 

be a licensed PE to practice many engineering disciplines 

and to sign and seal engineering plans and drawings. The 

structural engineer license, while similar to the PE, carries 

increased requirements. Some states recognize and require 

a structural engineer license for the structural design of specifc large or public structures.1, 2

There are four main requirements for becoming a PE:

■ Completing a bachelor of science degree accredited by 

 the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology 

 (ABET) Engineering Accreditation Committee (EAC).

■ Passing the Fundamentals of Engineering examination.

■ Completing 4 years of relevant experience supervised by 

 a PE.

■ Passing the PE examination. 

Many universities offer resident ABET-EAC–accredited 

bachelor’s degrees in engineering disciplines. Online accredited degrees are now available, making it feasible to complete degree requirements even while on active duty. The 

University of North Dakota was the frst to offer primarily online accredited degrees in chemical, civil, electrical, 

Military experience as a construction engineer supervisor 

can lead to numerous careers in the civilian construction 

industry.

Licensed architects perform many of the same roles as engineers, including

approving construction drawings and specifcations and serving as project 

and construction managers.
8 Engineer January–April 2016

mechanical, and petroleum engineering. A small number of 

laboratory credits are required for each degree, completed in 

1- or 2-week resident phases, unless credit is given for laboratory work done during professional military education or 

at another university. Those interested in pursuing the PE 

should note that engineering technology degrees accredited 

by the ABET Engineering Technology Accreditation Committee do not meet qualifying requirements for the PE in 

most jurisdictions. 

The ideal time to attempt the Fundamentals of Engineering examination is immediately before or after graduation 

to avoid having to relearn material. Some universities even 

require taking the examination as a graduation requirement. The examination is offered in six discipline-specifc 

versions for chemical, civil, electrical, environmental, industrial, and mechanical engineering and in a general examination for all other disciplines. All versions are offered yearround and consist of 110 multiple-choice questions with a 

6-hour time limit.

Time spent working in most engineer units and participation in some engineer professional military education 

count toward the experience required. Fortunately, there 

are many PEs in the Engineer Regiment who should be 

eligible to sign experience documentation. While a USACE 

assignment provides the best experience in preparation for 

the PE examination, such an assignment is generally not 

necessary to meet the minimum eligibility requirements for 

the examination. 

The PE examination is offered in 25 different versions 

based on the discipline and on further specialization within 

certain disciplines. Each examination version is administered in two 4-hour blocks. Civil, electrical, and mechanical PE candidates must also declare a specialization, which 

is tested during the afternoon block. The examination is 

conducted in April and October, with the main disciplines 

offered both months. Examination for the smaller disciplines are offered once a year, in either April or October. 

S

imilar to the PE for engineering disciplines, there are 

legal requirements in all 50 states to be licensed as 

a registered architect (RA) in order to use the title 

architect, to practice architecture, and to sign and seal or 

stamp architectural construction drawings and documents. 

In the architecture, engineering, and construction industry, architects perform many of the same roles and responsibilities as engineers, including project and construction 

managers. In the design phases of a building project using 

traditional project delivery methods, the project owner contracts with an architect to design a project. Engineers from 

various disciplines (typically structural, civil, mechanical, 

and electrical) are consultants who are subcontracted by 

the architect.

There are three main requirements for becoming a registered architect: 

■ Completing a professional degree in architecture accred- 

 ited by the National Architectural Accrediting Board 

 (NAAB).

■ Completing the 2-year Intern Development Program 

 (IDP)—to be renamed the Architectural Experience Pro- 

 gram (AXP) later this year—through the National Coun- 

 cil of Architectural Registration Boards.

■ Passing all sections of the Architectural Registration 

 Examination (ARE).

The only degrees accredited by the NAAB are the 5-year 

bachelor of architecture and the 1- to 3-year master of architecture degrees. Curricula include courses that cover knowledge shared with disciplines related to architecture, such as 

architectural, civil, structural, electrical, and mechanical 

engineering, in addition to courses in professional practice 

management and architectural design. Graduates of bachelor of science in architecture or environmental design programs (which includes the majority of architecture majors 

commissioned as engineer offcers) will require a master 

of architecture degree to qualify for licensure.3 No completely online master of architecture program exists, 

but Southern Illinois University at Carbondale has a 

42-credit program with all but two courses offered online. 

Those two courses are design courses that are conducted 

in St. Louis, Missouri, in 3- or 4-weekend sessions each. 

This makes it feasible for engineers assigned to Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri, to obtain the degree. Lawrence 

Technical University, Southfeld, Michigan, also has a 

blended program of online classes with a 5-week resident 

summer session near Detroit, Michigan. Master of architecture degrees at other schools can be pursued through 

Advanced Civil Schooling or the Graduate School for 

Active Duty Service Obligation programs.

The 2-year IDP/AXP requires at least 1 year of experience supervised by a licensed architect in an organization engaged in the lawful practice of architecture, 

such as a USACE district. The remainder of the IDP/

AXP can be supervised by a PE or RA in a wide variety 

Many military engineer careers can prepare Soldiers for 

civilian jobs in construction management.
January–April 2016 Engineer 9

of work settings, including tactical engineer 

units. Completion of the Engineer Basic Offcer 

Leader Course can provide roughly 10 percent 

of the total requirement. The IDP/AXP is a prescriptive program with mandatory experience 

hours in 17 areas related to the design and construction of buildings, such as—

■ Project cost and feasibility.

■ Project management.

■ Codes and regulations.

■ Construction contract documents.

■ Construction contract administration.

In June 2016, the program will be realigned 

into six areas of experience covering practice 

management, project management, programming and analysis, project planning and design, project 

development and documentation, and construction and 

evaluation. Because of the structured nature of the program, 

anyone with an architecture degree should enroll in the IDP/

AXP to document experience as soon as possible and request 

an assignment to a USACE district with a military programs mission to fulfll all the IDP/AXP requirements.4

The current version of the ARE, which expires in June 

2018, includes seven examination divisions, all scheduled 

and paid for individually, with a total of 555 multiple-choice 

questions and 11 building design problems that test the 

ability to integrate programmatic, structural, mechanical, 

building code, zoning, and Americans with Disabilities Act 

requirements in building and site designs. In late 2016, a 

new version of the examination, with six divisions that align 

directly with the six new IDP/AXP areas, will be introduced.5

Geologist License

S

imilar to other professional licenses, the registered 

geologist or professional geologist license is intended 

to help ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the 

public; the preservation of the environment; and the economic feasibility of constructed projects. However, unlike an 

engineer or architect, a licensed geologist does not design 

or build structures. A geologist is responsible for investigating and interpreting earth materials and processes to advise 

and inform the project designer about how to compensate for 

existing geological conditions to ensure the feasibility and 

safety of engineered works. Engineers take this information 

and work with geologists to determine how to design and 

build safe structures. 

Currently, 30 states and Puerto Rico have laws for licensure or registration of geologists. Each state has different 

education requirements that can be found on the Association 

of State Boards of Geology and state Web sites. There are 

four main requirements for becoming a professional geologist that are common to all states: 

■ Completing a bachelor of science or bachelor of arts 

 degree in geoscience.

■ Passing the Fundamentals of Geology Examination

■ Completing the years of experience required by the state 

 board. (This varies from 3 to 7 years).

■ Passing the Practice of Geology Examination. 

Some states accept degrees in geological engineering, 

and some states accept master’s degrees, making it possible 

to qualify for licensure after completing the master of geological engineering cooperative degree through the Missouri 

University of Science and Technology at Rolla. The 4-hour 

Fundamentals of Geology Examination, which consists of 

140 multiple-choice questions, can be taken upon degree 

completion. In some states, a candidate who passes the 

examination is referred to as a geologist in training while 

attaining the required work experience.

When the state board determines that a candidate has 

met all other requirements, it gives approval to take the 

Practice of Geology Examination. This examination is a 

4-hour, 110-question test based on the application of knowledge. Both examinations are offered in September/October 

and March of each year and may be taken on the same day.6

Likely candidates include engineer offcers with undergraduate degrees in geological studies and Engineer Captains Career Course or construction engineering technician 

(MOS 120A) Warrant Offcer Advanced Course graduates 

who complete the master of geological engineering degree. 

The registered professional geologist license is also a relevant and achievable goal for some technical engineer (MOS 

12T), horizontal engineer (MOS 12N), or geospatial engineer 

(MOS 12Y) noncommissioned offcers (NCOs), especially 

with qualifying online degrees, such as a bachelor of science 

in geology, now available from the University of Florida. 

T

he Project Management Institute® (PMI) is the one 

of the largest and most recognized professional membership organizations dealing with project, program, 

and portfolio management. The institute’s book, A Guide 

to the Project 7 (commonly 

The master of geological engineering degree offered by the Missouri 

University of Science and Technology can be the frst step to a career 

as a registered geologist.
10 Engineer January–April 2016

known as PMBOK), is used as a standard for project management in different industries and professions. PMI offers 

several credentials, but the Certifed Associate in Project 

Management (CAPM) and the Project Management Professional (PMP) credentials are the logical choices that most 

leaders in the Engineer Regiment can achieve.

The CAPM demonstrates an understanding of project 

management processes, but with less experience than the 

PMP. Examination eligibility is achieved through either 

23 project management education hours or 1,500 hours of 

project management experience, making it attainable for 

many staff sergeant, warrant offcer one, or second lieutenant engineers. The 3-hour examination has 150 multiplechoice questions. Though this is an entry level credential, 

passing the CAPM examination before taking any other PMI 

examinations is not required.

The PMP is the capstone credential for project managers. It validates competence in the role of a project manager. It takes more experience and education to achieve 

this credential, including a bachelor’s degree in any discipline, 4,500 hours of experience in project management, and 

35 hours of project management training. Most sergeants 

frst class, warrant offcers two, and commissioned offcers 

in grades captain and above should be able to document the 

experience necessary to qualify. The 4-hour examination has 

200 multiple-choice questions. 

The CAPM and the PMP examinations are offered yearround and are typically computer-based and taken at a 

Prometric testing site.8It is possible for organizations to 

schedule local paper examinations, sometimes at reduced 

applicant cost, though test scoring takes much longer.

Project management experience comes in many different 

forms, so leaders from any type of unit may be eligible to 

take the PMP examination. The PMP certifcation is highly 

regarded within the Engineer Regiment (and in many civilian 

sectors). Most leadership roles require project management skills, so studying for and obtaining these credentials 

will be benefcial to any leader. PMI estimates that civilian project managers who hold a PMP certifcation typically 

earn 17 percent more per year than those without the 

certifcation.9

Courses leading up to both credentials are available. 

Online PMP preparation courses are available at no cost 

at <https://usarmy.skillport.com>. Courses provide all the 

needed study materials, including a copy of the PMBOK. 

The CAPM examination costs $300, and the PMP examination costs $555.10

T

he Certifed Construction Manager (CCM) is the 

industry-standard certifcation in the construction 

management profession. Those who earn the CCM 

have certifed abilities to apply effective management techniques to the planning, design, and construction of a project 

from inception to completion for the purpose of controlling 

time, cost, and quality. CCMs are highly marketable and are 

accredited by the Construction Managers Certifcation Institute, which is affliated with the Construction Management 

Association of America (CMAA).11 Some project owners, such 

as the General Services Administration (GSA), prefer to hire 

frms that use the CMAA construction management standards of practice and have CCMs on the project staff. The 

CCM complements a license in engineering or architecture 

and is also a very valuable stand-alone credential.

All CCM candidates are required to have the mandatory 

minimum of 48 months of experience during which they 

were responsible in charge of key functions during each 

phase of a project or program. The defnition of responsible in charge does not 

require that an applicant be the fnal 

decisionmaker on all aspects of each 

project from start to fnish for a total of 

4 years. Rather, CMAA outlines 30 experience areas from six project functions 

over the fve phases of a project. For each 

area, applicants must have some experience in which they were empowered to 

make decisions that directly impacted 

the successful completion of a project and 

were responsible for construction management in that particular experience 

area. There is no minimum requirement 

for each experience area, and a unit commander can validate an applicant’s experience. For example, anyone who was a 

designated contracting offcer representative for a few months during the fnal 

phases of a small construction project 

could receive credit for all required experience in at least four experience areas: 

The CAPM and PMP credentials are logical choices that most Army engineer 

leaders can bring to civilian careers.
January–April 2016 Engineer 11

quality management and contract administration in both 

the construction and postconstruction phases. 

CCM applicants with a bachelor’s or master’s degree in a 

qualifying discipline require only the minimum 48 months 

of responsible in charge experience. Qualifying degrees 

include—

■ Construction management.

■ Construction technology.

■ Construction science.

■ Architecture.

■ Civil engineering.

■ Electrical engineering.

■ Industrial engineering.

■ Mechanical engineering.

■ Architectural engineering. 

Applicants without a bachelor’s or higher qualifying 

degree need additional general design or construction experience to qualify: 4 years for those with an associate’s degree 

in a qualifying discipline and 8 years for those with no college degree or with degrees in nonqualifying disciplines. 

The CCM examination is a 5-hour test with 200 multiplechoice questions that cover project management, cost management, time management, contract administration, quality management, professional practice, and safety and risk 

management. Only 175 questions are graded; 25 are pilot 

questions. In preparing for the examination, the Construction Management Certifcation Institute recommends the 

CMAA Standards of Practice Study Kit in addition to those 

listed in the construction management core competencies.12

Likely candidates for the CCM are—

■ General engineers (commissioned offcers in MOS 12A

 and warrant offcers in MOS 120A).

■ Construction engineering supervisors (NCOs in MOS 

 12H).

■ Horizontal construction engineers (NCOs in MOS 12N).

■ General engineering supervisors (NCOs in MOS 12X).

Meeting the CCM eligibility requirements may seem 

diffcult, yet it need not. It is possible that an NCO with as 

few as 8 years of time in service and a qualifying degree 

(such as an associate’s degree in construction management 

from Park University at Fort Leonard Wood) could qualify for the CCM. Those who set personal goals to achieve 

the CCM early in their careers and seek out required 

experiences should be successful. The experience may be 

gained by working in their units, by assisting their local 

Directorate of Public Works or USACE area offces, or 

even by volunteering with organizations such as Habitat 

for Humanity or a local church with construction needs. 

Members of the Engineer Regiment who are interested in 

applying for a CCM certifcate can contact Colonel Don C. 

Young (retired), P.E., CCM at <dyoung@mbpce.com> for 

more information.

T

he Certifed Equipment Manager (CEM) credential 

is an industry standard for heavy equipment 

and maintenance managers. CEM is one of two 

credentials available through the Association of Equipment 

Management Professionals, an association of organizations 

and individuals involved in managing and maintaining 

heavy construction equipment. It provides opportunities for 

continuing education, networking, and professional certifcation. The association is widely recognized and endorsed 

throughout the construction equipment industry, with 

numerous corporate members.

Likely candidates for the CEM credential are engineer 

equipment maintenance warrant offcers (MOS 919A), 

construction equipment repairer NCOs (MOS 19L), and 

other maintenance warrant offcers and NCOs with heavy 

equipment experience.13 Applicants must have a minimum 

of 5 years of experience in equipment management and 

25 points, based on criteria including military and supervisory experience, the dollar value of managed, civilian 

education, and a 200-word personal statement. Any engineer in MOS 919A or 19L with at least 5 years in a supervisory position should easily exceed the minimum eligibility requirements. The application also requires a résumé 

and letter of recommendation that attests to the applicant’s abilities and applications of equipment management. 

Engineer equipment maintenance MOSs offer a path 

to a CEM credential.

“It is possible that an NCO with 

as few as 8 years of time in service and a qualifying degree . . . 

could qualify for the CCM.” 
12 Engineer January–April 2016

Ultimately, any study for the examination will be valuable 

for leaders who want to increase their professional competence or increase their marketability during a transitionto-industry, municipal, or governmental employment. 

The CEM examination is offered twice annually. It tests 

20 knowledge areas, all of which are covered in the Warrant 

Offcer Basic Course for MOS 919A. They include—

■ Risk management.

■ Employee training.

■ Environmental requirements.

■ Safety.

■ Parts management.

■ Preventative maintenance.

■ Shop and facility management. 

Included with the examination fee, the AEMP provides 

17 online courses for examination preparation. Though 

advertised examination fees are high, AEMP has informally 

agreed to provide a reduced rate of $795 to Soldiers in MOSs 

919A and 91L to meet the annual Army credentialing reimbursement limit. For more details, contact Chief Warrant 

Offcer Three Terry W. Tanner with the 919A Professional 

Development Branch at (573) 596-5102.

Design

T

he U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) is a nonproft organization that promotes sustainable planning, design, construction, and operation of buildings. Through its Leadership in Energy and Environmental 

Design (LEED) program, USGBC provides credentials to 

individual professionals and certifcation of constructed projects. Many project owners want their projects to be certifed 

as meeting LEED criteria regarding savings of energy, water, 

resources, and money, while improving occupant health and 

well-being. This includes the federal government, which uses 

LEED to verify that new and renovated government and 

military facilities meet energy use and sustainability mandates. For a project to be LEEDcertifed, LEED-credentialed staff must work on 

the project team. The LEED credential is unique 

because design and construction companies must 

hire LEED-credentialed individuals to meet the 

current market demand for LEED-certifed projects. 

USGBC offers six LEED credentials. An individual with the entry level LEED Green Associate designation is recognized as having general knowledge of sustainable building principles and practices. Following the LEED Green 

Associate credential, an engineer might specialize 

with accredited professional (AP) certifcations. 

The AP certifcation is available in—

■ Building design and construction.

■ Operations and maintenance.

■ Neighborhood development.

■ Interior design and construction.

■ Homes.

Project experience and college education are not requirements for the LEED Green Associate or AP credentials. 

USBGC recommends, but does not require, LEED project 

experience before application. This makes applying for the 

credential relatively simple. The Green Associate examination consists of 100 multiple-choice questions. Completion 

of the Green Associate examination is required before taking any of the AP examinations. The tests are administered 

throughout the year at Prometric testing centers. A knowledge of current trends in the building industry and Army 

operational energy programs can assist in preparing for the 

examination. The knowledge required for the Green Associate credential can be useful for any Service member in any 

construction-related MOS. The AP credentials could be useful while working on a USACE project or during a transition from military service to design, construction, or facility 

management industries.14

Examination resources are available on the USGBC Web 

site. Members of the Engineer Regiment can join USGBC 

free of charge and receive member discounts by simply 

selecting U.S. Army as their company when joining. Using a 

military e-mail address may facilitate the process. The cost 

of earning a LEED Green Associate credential is $200, and 

the cost for AP specialties is $250 for USGBC members.

T

he Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) 

was founded in 1948 by specifcation writers from 

USACE and the U.S. Navy’s Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command to improve the quality and consistency of construction specifcations on an industry-wide 

basis. Specifcations are a critical part of construction 

contracts and are the means used to describe the type 

and quality of materials, the quality of workmanship, 

Army engineer construction experience can lead to credentials such 

as certifed construction contract administrator, certifed construction specialist, or others.
January–April 2016 Engineer 13

the methods of fabrication and installation, and any general 

requirements related to the construction of a project. 

MasterFormat®, published by CSI and its Canadian counterpart, Construction Specifcations Canada, is the North American construction standard for organizing project manuals and 

detailed cost information and for relating construction drawings 

or plans to specifcations. The Unifed Facilities Guide Specifcations,15 developed and currently used by USACE, the Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command, the U.S. Air Force Civil Engineer Center, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to specify construction projects, are based on the 

latest version of MasterFormat. In addition to maintaining 

industry standard formats, CSI provides certifcations that 

are benefcial for those who write specifcations or administer 

construction contracts or just need to understand how the construction industry is organized, operates, and communicates. 

CSI offers the following certifcations that can beneft the 

Engineer Regiment:15

■ Construction Documents Technologist (CDT). The 

 CDT program introduces candidates to the fundamentals 

 of construction: construction documentation, contractual 

 relationships, and relationships and organization of con- 

 struction documents. The CDT certifcate does not require 

 prerequisite education or years of experience to qualify, 

 it never expires, and it does not require continuing 

 education or renewal fees. The candidate must pass a 

 computer-based examination of 120 multiple-choice 

 questions in fundamentals, project concept and delivery, 

 design process, construction documents, procurement, 

 preconstruction, construction, and lifecycle activities. 

 CSI’s Project Delivery Practice Guide is the primary 

 study aid for the examination. The registration fee for 

 the examination varies, but the average cost is $430.16 

This certifcate is the frst step in achieving a CSI

 certifcation. The CDT is a benefcial certifcate for lead-

 ers at all levels with the following specialties:

T Engineer offcer (MOS 12A).

T Construction engineer (MOS 12H).

T Horizontal construction engineer (MOS 12N).

T Technical engineering specialist (MOS 12T).

T Construction engineering technician (MOS 120A).

The CDT credential bridges the knowledge gap between 

professional military education based on troop construction and operations orders and the way the construction 

industry operates and communicates through contracts 

in the federal and private sectors.

■ Certifed Construction Contract Administrator 

 (CCCA). Candidates further their understanding of con- 

 struction fundamentals in the CCCA program. The CCCA 

 focuses on aspects of the construction process such as 

 quality assurance and quality control, bidding and 

 negotiating, construction inspection, project enforcement, 

 and project liability. The prerequisite for the CCCA 

 examination is the CDT certificate plus 2 years of 

 experience in construction contract administration. 

 The examination consists of 200 multiple-choice ques- 

 tions that test an applicant’s understanding of claims 

 and disputes, contracts, project records, quality control 

 and quality assurance, and site visits. Once CCCA- 

 certifed, engineers maintain certifcation by completing

 24 hours of professional development over 3 years and 

 remaining active in the feld. The examination costs

 approximately $480.

The CCCA is an ideal certifcation for leaders with the 

same MOSs as those with the CDT credential, including 

MOSs 12A, 12H, 12N, 12T, and 120A, with experience 

in construction units, a contracting agency, or USACE.17

Engineers with CCCA credentials often fll a role similar 

to that of the administrative contracting offcer flled by 

resident engineers in USACE feld offces.

■ Certifed Construction Specifer (CCS). The CCS 

 credential is geared toward engineers who write construc- 

 tion specifcations. An engineer with detailed knowledge 

 of a construction specialty can make an excellent speci- 

 fcation writer in his or her specialty. Applicants must

 frst hold the CDT certifcate and have 2 years of expe-

 rience in the preparation and coordination of specifca-

 tions used in construction. Applicants must also have 

 5 years of experience in the preparation of construction 

 documents. The examination consists of 200 multiple- 

 choice questions testing the following topics:18

T Construction contract types.

T Agreements and conditions of a contract.

T Changes in the work.

T Construction design document organization.

T Division 01, general requirements.

T Production techniques.

T Procurement and contracting requirements.

T Specifcation of techniques and applications.

T Specifcation writing.

Once CCS-certifed, engineers maintain certifcation by 

completing 24 hours of professional development over 

3 years and remaining active in the feld. The examination costs approximately $480.

 The CCS is a potential capstone certifcation for engineers 

with MOSs 12H, 12N, 12T, or 120A who have signifcant 

construction specifcation experience in their assignments. 

The CCS credential ensures that the technical requirements 

in a construction contract are clear and suffcient, increasing 

the probability that a project that meets all requirements 

will be completed on time and on budget. 

T

he American Institute of Certifed Planners (AICP) 

is part of the American Planning Association; and 

it awards credentials related to urban, regional, 

environmental, and transportation planning and urban 

design. The Certifed Planner (CP) designation is the AICP 
credential most likely to be achieved by Army engineers. This 

credential validates research and design skills and endorses 

the ability of a professional to develop programs that enable 

transportation, environmental, or urban design. The CP 

credential focuses on nine core competencies and overviews 

14 specialty competencies. AICP also offers further certifcation in advanced specialty competencies, including the Certifed Environmental Planner, Certifed Transportation Planner, and Certifed Urban Designer credentials.19 With their 

8-year experience requirement, these advanced credentials 

are probably beyond the reach of most Regular Army engineers but would be benefcial and achievable for some Army 

National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve engineers.

An engineer with a Planning Accreditation Boardaccredited undergraduate or graduate degree in urban, city, 

or regional planning with 3 or more years of planning experience is an obvious candidate for the CP certifcation. Those 

with nonaccredited degrees in related or other felds such as

architecture, geography, history, or civil engineering require 

4 years of experience in planning. A Planning Accreditation 

Board-accredited graduate degree in planning, such as the 

online Master of Infrastructure Planning and Management 

degree from the University of Washington or the online Master of Urban and Regional Planning degree with an optional 

specialization in geographic information systems from the 

University of Florida, reduces the experience requirement to 

2 years. The annual examination consists of 170 multiplechoice questions.

Endnotes:

1National Council of Examiners for Engineering and

Surveying, “PE Exam,” <http://ncees.org/exams/pe-exam>,

accessed on 8 December 2015.

2National Council of Examiners for Engineering and 

Surveying, “SE Exam,” <http://ncees.org/exams/se-exam>, 

accessed on 8 December 2015.

3National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 

“Studying Architecture,” <http://www.ncarb.org/Studying

-Architecture.aspx>, accessed on 8 December 2015.

4National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 

“Intern Development Program,” <http://www.ncarb.org

/Experience-Through-Internships.aspx>, accessed on 8 December 2015.

5National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 

“Architect Registration Examination,” <http://www.ncarb.org

/ARE.aspx>, accessed on 8 December 2015.

6National Association of State Boards of Geology, “Candidate 

Resources: Examination Application Process,” <http://asbog

.org/registration.html>, accessed on 8 December 2015.

7Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Man-

 Knowledge, Project Management Institute, 

Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, 1 January 2013.

8Program Management Institute, “Certifcations,” <http://

www.pmi.org/certifcation.aspx>, accessed on 8 December 2015.

9

Ibid.

10Ibid.

11Construction Management Association of America, “Becoming a CCM,” <http://cmaanet.org/becoming-ccm>, accessed on 

8 December 2015.

12Ibid.

13Association of Equipment Management Professionals, 

“Certifed Equipment Manager (CEM),” <http://www.aemp.org

/aemp-education/certifcations/cem/>, accessed on 8 December 

2015.

14U.S. Green Building Council, “Credentials,” <http://www

.usgbc.org/credentials>, accessed on 9 December 2015.

15United Facilities Criteria (UFC), UFC 1-300-02, 1 April 

2014, Unifed Facilities Guide Specifcations (UFGS) 

Standard,<http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_1_300

_02.pdf>.

16Construction Specifications Institute, “Certifications” 

<http://www.csinet.org/Main-Menu-Category/Certification

.aspx>, accesssed on 8 December 2015.

17Ibid.

18Ibid.

19Ibid.

20American Planning Association, “Get Certifed,” <http://

www.planning.org/certifcation>, accessed on 8 December 2015.

Lieutenant Colonel H. W. Hugh Darville, Director of InstrucCaptain Iana J. Daniels, Engineer Captains Career Course, 

Captain Ryan M. Dunbar, Engineer Captains Career Course, 

Captain Ronald N. Thenn, Engineer Captains Career Course, 

Captain Joshua A. Henderson, Engineer Basic Offcer Leader 

Course, Chief, General Engineering Division

Captain Drew A. Maci, Engineer Basic Offcer Leader Course, 

instructor/writer

Captain Jason A. Mullen, Engineer Basic Offcer Leader 

Course, instructor/writer

Captain Blaise J. Staub, Engineer Basic Offcer Leader 

Course, instructor/writer

Captain Katherine A. Engineer Captains Career 

Course, student, Class 01-16

Captain Nicholas A. Reisweber, Engineer Captains Career 

Course, student, Class 01-16

Chief Warrant Offcer Four Curtis L. Martin, Director, Ord14 Engineer January–April 2016
January–April 2016 Engineer 15

(Continued on page 18)

S

everal articles in engineer publications describe the 

process of attaining the project management professional (PMP) certifcate and the added value it provides for an engineer’s career development.1, 2 There is a 

requirement that holders accumulate 60 professional development units (PDUs) every 3 years in a manner prescribed 

by the Project Management Institute® (PMI) to maintain 

the PMP. While the number of PDUs to be earned hasn’t 

changed, the requirements for maintaining the certifcate 

were overhauled on 1 December 2015. 

PDUs can now be earned through a combination of 

education and giving back. According to the new PMI guidance, at least 35 PDUs must be earned through education, 

which includes three tracks: 

■ Technical.

■ Leadership.

■ Strategic and business management. 

Conversely, there is a cap at 25 PDUs that can be earned 

through the three tracks for giving back:

■ Volunteering.

■ Creating knowledge.

■ Working as a professional. 

The PMI Web site explains the reason for the change 

in continuing certifcation requirements. “Extensive market research and feedback from certifcation holders and 

organizations identifed a subset of skills which employers require for project practitioners to deliver improved 

results. These skills areas are represented in the PMI Talent Triangle. The CCR requirements updates align professional development activities, specifcally education activities, with the PMI Talent Triangle to ensure certifcation 

holders are focused on the needs of the profession.”3

Holders of PMP certifcates due to expire before 1 December 2017 do not need to adhere to the updated CCR rules. 

Those with certifcates set to expire on or after 1 December 

2017 must adhere to the updated CCR maximum/minimum 

PDU reporting rules.

For activities or courses to count toward the education 

requirement, they must be offered by a PMI Registered 

Education Provider from the list at <http://www.pmi.org 

/learning/professional-development/rep-find-a-registered 

-education-provider.aspx>. The site lists providers for locations around the country, the activities and courses they 

offer, and contact information for them. The costs of the 

activities and courses vary greatly. The U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers Learning Center offers classes that provide 

skill enhancement and PDUs at <http://ulc.usace.army 

.mil/>. Classes can be found by checking the fscal year

2016 course catalog, also known as the Purple Book, at 

<http:/ulc.usace/army.mil/downloads/purplebook2016.pdf>. 

Some classes have already been filled, so attendance 

requests should be submitted as soon as possible.

A

ttendance at a meeting of the local PMI chapter usually earns one or two PDUs. Attending one meeting a 

.month can earn at least 36 of the required PDUs and 

possibly all 60, depending on the chapter. PMI members can 

select a chapter to join from the PMI home page. An online 

search will reveal the closest chapter. Attendance at meetings, which usually costs $15 to $20, provides a multiplying 

effect by offering members the opportunity to meet civilian 

professionals and establish relationships with them before 

leaving the Army. 

Volunteering is another way to earn PDUs and build relationships by allowing members to get involved with the local 

community in a professional capacity, laying the groundwork for future opportunities. Military liaison is an emerging volunteer role embraced by PMI chapters that are close 

to military installations. In 2013, a pilot program began with 

the Tampa, Florida, PMI chapter forming a relationship 

with U.S. Central Command and U.S. Special Operations 

Command Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen stationed 

at MacDill Air Force Base. The program goal is to provide 

information and support on transitioning from the military 

and fnding civilian career options in project management.
16 Engineer January–April 2016

D

eveloping programs for professional credentialing and contracting qualifcation is not diffcult. 

Over the last 3 years, the 3d Infantry Division, 

Fort Stewart, Georgia, successfully supported the efforts of 

37 Soldiers who attained professional credentialing. This 

article describes the way the division engineer section helped 

those Soldiers earn professional credentials, most notably 

the project management professional (PMP) certifcate, professional engineer (PE) licensure, and contracting offcer 

representative (COR) qualifcation. Despite a new emphasis 

on professional certifcation, the Army has not developed a 

standardized program to attain various professional credentials. Subsequently, funds are not yet available to defray the 

costs of study materials, preparation courses, and examinations. As a result, most Soldiers who pursue credentials do 

so on their own time and at their own expense.

Soldiers with PMPs and PEs provide value to the Army, 

but deciding between pursuing the PMP or PE credential is 

challenging. The PMP certifcate is sought for several reasons. It does not require a science, technology, engineering, 

or mathematics degree, which makes it available to a larger 

population. The PMP examination can be scheduled yearround at approved testing centers, the PMP credential is not 

state-specifc, and the credential is internationally recognized. Also, the availability of the PMP examination allows 

Soldiers to schedule it at a convenient time. In comparison, 

the PE credential requires a degree in science, technology, 

engineering, or mathematics; the examination is only available twice yearly; the certifcation is state-specifc; and the 

certifcation is not always internationally recognized. Many 

PEs are also PMPs. 

F

inding time to study and prepare for the PMP examination while assigned to a deployable unit can be 

a challenge. The 3d Infantry Division engineer cell

By Lieutenant Colonel R. Daren Payne and Major Michael D. Steele 
January–April 2016 Engineer 17

implemented a method to identify and 

assist Soldiers who were interested in 

earning the credential. A series of information sessions was held to gauge interest and determine who was eligible to sit 

for the examination. Study groups were

held over a period of several months, culminating in a PMP “boot camp” shortly 

before Soldiers sat for the examination.

The approach leveraged periods of 

low operational tempo by holding information sessions during the half-day 

holiday schedule in December. Subsequently, study sessions were conducted 

on Mondays and Fridays during lunch 

breaks. The boot camp was held during 

a week with minimal training schedule 

con icts. In 2015, boot camp took place 

the week before Memorial Day. A certifed PMP facilitated each study session. 

Three or four certifed PMPs are usually 

necessary to ensure that they can juggle 

their day job commitments with the study 

sessions. New material was covered on 

Fridays, and Mondays served as reinforcing days, giving students two opportunities per week to study the material. 

Scheduling to make use of periods of low 

operational tempo and provide multiple opportunities for 

information and study sessions allowed Soldiers to successfully prepare for the examination despite the limited 

time available. 

P

ursuing PE licensure is inherently challenging. The 

examination is usually offered only twice yearly and 

is specifc to each discipline, such as civil, electrical, 

mechanical, and environmental engineering. Unlike the 

PMP examination, the PE licensure examination is administered differently from state to state. Many states require PE 

licensure applicants to work under a certifed PE for approximately 4 years. The biggest challenge is that PE licensure 

requires that the applicant pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination before sitting for the PE examination. Unfortunately, a surprising number of Soldiers with 

engineering degrees do not take the FE examination after 

graduation, making them ineligible for the PE examination until they later pass the FE examination. Therefore, 

only two to three Soldiers apply for PE licensing every year. 

Scheduling information sessions, conducting preparation 

courses, and running study groups for a small population is 

diffcult. Leaders can implement several measures to mitigate this challenge, including—

■ Using available licensed PEs to lead information ses-

 sions. Directorates of public works and local U.S. Army 

 Corps of Engineers (USACE) offices have PEs who 

 can help.

■ Leveraging relationships with USACE districts and pro-

 fessional organizations, such as the Society of American

 Military Engineers or the American Society of Civil Engi- 

 neers. USACE offers Web-based PE preparation courses 

 that are free to military engineers, and many profes- 

 sional organizations offer local study group opportunities 

 and affordable preparation course options.

■ Advertising the dates for the PE exams early. Dates can 

 be publicized in training guidance, in post-wide messages, 

 and through monthly engineer conference calls. 

■ Getting acquainted with offcials at the state professional

 licensing board in your state. For example, the director

 of the Georgia Professional Licensing Board was invited

 to brief 3d Infantry Division engineers at a Society of 

 American Military Engineers luncheon.

A

third important credential is the COR certifcation, 

which was one of the credentials most sought after 

.by commanders and engineer leaders during combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Only a contracting offcer can appoint a COR—and only after the potential COR has completed several training courses that can 

require several weeks of work. The 3d Infantry Division 

started a program that lets engineers complete the coursework to be ready on short notice for appointment as a COR. 

This program leverages free, Web-based classes and can 

be completed in about 50 hours. Candidates are allowed to 

Engineers from the 3d Infantry Division perform quality assurance for a 

Fort Stewart project.
18 Engineer January–April 2016

complete online courses during duty hours, and they must 

take Defense Acquisition University ethics training annually to maintain certifcation. Although COR qualifcation 

requirements vary, the 3d Infantry Division solution greatly 

eases the certifcation process in most instances, allowing a 

cadre of COR-ready leaders to be developed rapidly.

and Examinations

T

he typical price for a formal, 5-day PMP preparation 

course is $1,500 to $2,000. PE preparation courses 

are also expensive, and the fees do not cover travel 

costs. The 3d Infantry Division identifed the following ways 

to reduce the cost of PMP and PE preparation courses:

Ŷ Leverage professional organization networks. The Soci-

 ety of American Military Engineers sponsors a Creden-

 tialing Awards Achievement Program that reimburses

 noncommissioned offcers and members under age 40 who

 pass any one of 11 examinations, including the FE, PMP, 

 and PE examinations. The Savannah, Georgia, chapter of

 the Society of American Military Engineers funds up

 to 75 percent of examination fees. Organizations at other

 installations offer similar incentives. 

Ŷ Apply the GI Bill toward PMP or PE preparation courses

 or college classes that help prepare Soldiers for the 

 examinations. 

Ŷ Invest in the future by using unit training funds for a 

 PMP preparation boot camp. The 3d Infantry Division

 worked with a company that provides PMP training to 

 conduct classes. Costs are based on enrollment and can

 be reduced to about $700 per student.

Ŷ Establish a relationship with local USACE offcials, who

 often conduct PMP boot camps at their district offces.

 While prices and terms vary, the camps are usually 

 offered at a signifcant discount. 

T

here are three ingredients to success. A quality contribution by the study group cadre is necessary for 

a preparation program. Without the work of these 

volunteers, the program will not succeed. The program also 

requires a commitment from the participating Soldiers, 

who must devote their valuable personal time to prepare for 

the examinations. The fnal ingredient is leadership that 

is committed to developing professionals through improving the knowledge and technical capabilities of the force. 

Senior leader involvement will pay dividends for years 

to come. 

Conclusion

T

he 3d Infantry Division engineer section found one 

way—but not necessarily the only way—to help Soldiers become certifed as PMPs, PEs, and CORs. 

Deliberate scheduling that takes advantage of time and 

resources enables Soldiers to work on these credentials 

while reducing personal costs to them or maximizing the 

use of unit dollars. Experience proves that these efforts 

will be rewarded when conditions are set for Soldiers to 

receive the training they need to provide additional value to 

the Army.

Lieutenant Colonel Payne is the division engineer for 3d 

Infantry Division. He holds 

engineering sciences 

.

Major Steele is an engineer operations offcer for 3d Infantry 

Division. He holds 

professional in 2015.

Careful emphasis is placed on translating project management skills and terminology from military jargon to a commercial perspective. 

Whether it is at the end of a single enlistment or a 

20-year career, everyone transitions from military service.

Attending PMI meetings exposes engineers to topics they 

might not otherwise explore. Having a working knowledge 

and relationship with this community of practice empowers them to make informed decisions when determining the 

next step of their careers. 

Endnotes:

1Robert E. Dion, Jr., “Requirements for Becoming a Project 

Management Professional,” Engineer, PB 5-13-2, Volume 43, 

May–August 2013, pp. 31–33.

2Stewart R. Fearon, The Military Engineer, “The PMP 

Certifcation: What You Need to Know,” <http://themilitary 

engineer.com/index.php/item/343-the-pmp-certifcation-what

-you-need-to-know,> accessed on 11 January 2016.

3

“2015 Continuing Certifcation Requirements (CCR) Program Updates,” <http://www.pmi.org/certifcation/ccr-updates

/faqs-certifcation-holders.aspx>, accessed on 11 January 2016.

Captain is the plans offcer for the Directorate of 

Public Works at the U.S. 63d Regional Support 

View, California. He holds a bachelor’s 

degree 

degree in Uni-
January–April 2016 Engineer 19

A

s the Army moves forward in realigning the force 

structure, leaders of the Engineer Regiment are dou- 

.bling their efforts to mold an increasingly competent and competitive fghting force. Coupled with the directive of the Secretary of the Army and the effort led by the 

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, the U.S. Army 

Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, is a staunch 

advocate of the Army Credentialing Program. As defned by 

the Department of the Army, credentialing is “the process 

of meeting certain professional and technical standards and 

earning offcial recognition in the form of certifcates, licensure, and other offcial verifcation of competency accepted 

by civilian industry or federal, state or local authorities.”2

The pursuit of credentials, whether for self-development, 

career progression, or a civilian portfolio, enhances professional competitiveness and allows Soldiers to equip themselves with a nationally recognized standard of excellence. 

To better serve the 20 technical military occupational 

specialties (MOSs) within the Engineer Regiment, the Army 

Credentialing Program incorporates certifcations, licenses, 

and related educational degrees to bridge the gap between 

military training and experience and provide Soldiers with 

access to a wide array of certifcation and licensing examinations.3

 The program will align professional military education in the domain of institutional development with 

individual, MOS-related experience within the domain of 

operational development. Ultimately, the program supports 

the acquisition of credentials within the domain of selfdevelopment to achieve technical competency. The goal is 

to certify the qualifcations of Soldiers in their MOSs and 

increase their competitiveness in the civilian workforce. 

These certifcations will translate military-specifc occupations and competencies into experiences and skills that are 

attractive to civilian employers. To support varying experiences, the credentialing program offers a wide array of credentials, certifcations, and licenses to help Soldiers attain 

their individual and professional goals. 

Credential is an umbrella term encompassing programs 

such as certifcations, licensure, and accreditations that 

attest to an individual’s qualifcation and competence as 

assessed by a third-party organization. Project management 

professional and certifed facility manager are examples of 

credentials. Certifcations represent a recognition of an individual’s professional knowledge and experience and help to 

develop a qualifed workforce based on skilled trades, professions, and disciplines. A license is a legal requirement for the 

use of a title and the practice of a discipline. It sets eligibility requirements for an individual to engage in a particular 

occupation. For example, licensure to become a professional 

engineer or registered architect is proof that certain standards have been met, usually after the completion of education, experience, and examinations. 

When individual training or experience within the military 

is insuffcient to achieve particular civilian credentials, the 

gaps are flled through education or additional training. In 

some cases, taking advantage of degree opportunities and furthering education reduces the time necessary to obtain those 

credentials. Maximum Army funding for examination and 

licensing fees for a nationally recognized credential, certifcation, or license is $800 per Soldier in a fscal year.4

 Depending 

on the credential, Soldiers may have multiple credentialing 

opportunities throughout their careers, ending in a refned 

skill set to ease their eventual civilian transition process. 

The Engineer School is developing curricula to incorporate credentialing training programs that will allow leaders 

and Soldiers to receive a portion of the education and training necessary to meet eligibility requirements for particular 

credentials. Following graduation from professional military education, credentialing programs will be made available to Soldiers who have completed the Advanced or Senior 

Leader Courses, the Warrant Offcer Basic or Advanced 

Courses, the Engineer Basic Offcer Leader Course, or Engineer Captains Career Course.5

 Together with the U.S. Army 

Training and Doctrine Command, the Engineer School has 

“This is a win-win for the and its Soldiers. What better than now, when the Nation needs 

an of Soldiers and leaders with creative and critical thinking skills to any the 

1
20 Engineer January–April 2016

established a pilot program that provides mentorship and 

points of contact with Soldiers who have completed the requisite training and requirements for selected credentials. 

The pilot program supports fve credentials with initial certifcations awarded to cadre, which allow them to mentor 

graduates from Professional Military Education courses.6

The Engineer Regiment initiative to reassess additional 

skill identifers for enlisted Soldiers and skill identifers for 

offcers to include more credentials accommodates different engineer skill sets and gives leaders more incentives to 

obtain particular credentials.

As the push for credentialing opportunities increases, 

so do the resources available to obtain more information. 

Table 1 is a consolidated, but not all-inclusive, list of engineering credentials currently being targeted:

Numerous additional resources are available for leaders 

to obtain more credentialing information and for those seeking civilian credentials or licenses commensurate with MOS 

skills and management experience acquired during their 

military service. Below are some helpful links and resources: 

■ Army education counselors: Provide further information 

 about credentialing opportunities and funding options.

■ Army Directive 2015-12: Provides implementation guide- 

 lines and eligibility requirements for the Army Creden- 

 tialing Program. 

For more information, see the Web site at <http://

 armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf /ad2015_12.pdf>.

■ COOL (Credentialing Opportunities Online): Provides a 

 vast menu of credentials in many felds and MOSs and

 the corresponding requirements of each credential.

For more information, see the Web site at <https://www

 .cool.army.mil/>.

■ Engineer Regiment Credentialing Program Handbook: 

 Lists requirements for various credentials, certifcations, 

 and licenses. 

For more information, see the Web site at <https://mil

 -suite.mil/book/groups/engineer-credentialing-forum/>

■ Society of American Military Engineers (SAME): Pro- 

 vides military engineers with information about the 

 most commonly recognized credentials in the architec- 

 ture, engineering, and construction industries.

For more information, see the Web site at <http://www

.same.org/index.php/component/content/article/1040>.

SAME also sponsors a Credentialing Achievement 

 Awards Program for young members and noncommis- 

 sioned offcers. 

For more information, see the Web site at <http://www

 .same.org/index.php/events/credentialing-achievement

 -awards-program>.

As the Army Credentialing Program continues to develop, 

articles featuring credentials, certifcations, and licenses 

will be included in future editions of Engineer. 

Endnotes:

1Michelle Tan, “Army to Create Certifcations or Licenses 

for Every MOS,” , 24 March 2015, <http://www

.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/enlisted/2015/03

/23/army-credentialing-every-mos/25049105/>, accessed on

8 December 2015.

2Army Directive 2015-12, “Implementation Guidance for Credentialing Program and Career Skills Program,” John McHugh, 

Secretary of the Army, <http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf

/ad2015_12.pdf>, accessed on 19 November 2015.

3Engineer Regi ent Credentialing Progra andbook, 

Directorate of Training and Leader Development, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, <https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups

/engineer-credentialing-forum/overview>, accessed on

19 November 2015.

4Army Directive 2015-12.

5

.

6

Ibid.

Captain Huff yer is a student in the Engineer Captains 

Career Course. She holds a bachelor’s degree in business -

Table 1
January–April 2016 Engineer 21

T

he past 20 months can best be described as a challenge to make Europe more reliable and ready for 

The sense of urgency has been fueled by 

unforeseen aggression, limited initial capabilities, and 

an ever-expanding North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) footprint. Operation Atlantic Resolve (AR) is an 

ongoing U.S. effort to provide assurance to our European 

allies by augmenting their forces and conducting exercises 

with NATO allies.

Throughout the fall and early winter of 2014, engineer 

planning focused on courses of action to accomplish what 

was becoming a monumental undertaking. How engineers 

have played their part in making Europe stronger can best 

be illustrated by examining mission requirements, analyzing available forces, and exploiting innovative solutions. 

The process that engineer planners used to conduct highlevel resource planning for this type of operation within a 

complex, nontraditional environment, compressed timeline, 

and ever-increasing sense of urgency can be broken down 

into the following basic steps:

■ Analyze requirements.

■ Analyze available resources.

■ Request resource shortfalls from higher headquarters.

■ Draft an initial task organization.

■ Assign mission command elements (MCEs) and com-

 mand and support relationships, requesting any addi- 

 tional necessary MCEs.

■ Monitor and reevaluate the task organization through

 the rest of the planning and execution processes.

E

ngineers were given the task of planning, developing, and improving training support areas to 

demonstrate U.S. resolve and commitment to its 

NATO allies. To plan resources for ERI troop construction, 

engineer planners had to understand the requirements. 

Initial planning for AR and ERI divided Europe into 

AR-North and AR-South. AR was the set of exercises conducted; ERI was the funding package that supported them. 

During a series of technical engineering surveys, the team 

divided construction requirements at each site into those 

that fell within troop construction capabilities and those that 

would have to be accomplished by contract. The focus of this 

article is on planning for troop construction. The end result 

was an initial requirement estimate of one construction 

engineer battalion in AR-North and another in AR-South. 

As engineer planners refned the estimate, the fnal requirement to support fscal year (FY) 2015 troop construction was 

three construction companies and an engineer brigade (-). 

This is one in a series of articles concerning engineering support to the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI). It details 

the challenges faced in construction efforts of engineer enablers and the engineer resource planning 

process. For other articles in the series, see Engineer

A Romanian soldier and his U.S. counterpart survey a 

future road project.
22 Engineer January–April 2016

T

he second step in resource planning is to determine 

which resources are available to the organization. 

During the rapid execution of ERI planning, the 

analysis of available forces identifed the 15th Engineer 

Battalion as the only organic construction battalion in 

U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR). The battalion includes 

one horizontal (earth-moving) and one vertical (structural) company. The critical detail revealed during the 

analysis was that the battalion supports U.S. European 

Command and U.S. Africa Command. In late November 

and early December 2014, a platoon from the 15th Engineers deployed to support U.S. Africa Command Operation United Assistance, complicating USAREUR engineer 

plans to employ assigned construction capability to support 

AR. Fortunately, further analysis allowed engineer planners to reduce the requirement for an entire battalion in 

both AR-North and AR-South so that the 15th Engineer 

Battalion could support AR and Operation United Assistance. However, this challenge emphasized the importance 

of establishing ERI as a priority for the 15th Engineer Battalion to ensure the long-term success of AR.

O

nce requirements were understood and planners 

had allocated the needed engineer capabilities, it 

was time to determine what additional engineer 

assets were required. When requesting additional resources, 

only a thorough analysis of requirements and capabilities 

can provide justifcation to higher headquarters. Since the 

15th Engineer Battalion is the only assigned Army construction battalion in Europe, engineer planners understood that 

there was an engineer defcit that would require assistance 

from outside USAREUR. 

Based on the compressed timeline and approval process, engineer planners submitted an initial request for 

engineer forces by mid-December 2014. This request 

included an additional engineer construction battalion and 

a deployable command post from a theater engineer command. However, there

were difficulties with sourcing the 

request for forces because AR was not a

named operation. Therefore, the proper

mobilization and funding authorities to

employ Regular Army or Reserve Component engineers did not exist. As a 

result, engineer planners cancelled the 

request for forces and began exploring 

more innovative ways to achieve engineer 

effects in support of AR. The result was 

to leverage the National Guard through 

the U.S. European Command-sponsored

State Partnership Program (SPP). 

USAREUR engineer planners identifed 

an engineer brigade headquarters and two 

company size construction units. These elements and a 

company from the 15th Engineer Battalion fulflled the 

ERI troop construction requirement for FY 15.

T

ask organization is key to the success of all military 

operations. The AR troop construction mission was 

no different. Engineer planners developed an initial 

task organization for the mission, but it was complicated 

by a lack of familiarity between the Regular Army and 

National Guard units that were to execute the construction. 

Task organization ensures that the right amount of equipment and personnel are available to successfully accomplish 

an assigned mission. If done correctly, task organization is 

the focal discussion point throughout the planning process, 

allowing planners to assess, validate, and refne required 

assets based on mission requirements. Without a task organization, planning becomes extremely diffcult. One of the 

common mistakes planners make is believing that they can 

develop the plan frst and then shape the task organization 

based on the plan. The correct way to develop a plan is to 

develop a task organization based on an understanding of 

the mission and then revisit that task organization throughout the military decisionmaking process, based on changing 

requirements and additional guidance. 

Unfortunately, the task organization for FY 15 troop 

construction was less than optimal because of the requirement to begin execution before fully understanding the 

complexities of the mission. As a result, the importance of 

a well-defned task organization was highlighted during the 

after action review. Due to this emphasis, task organization 

became the frst task and deliberate planning objective for 

FY 16 troop construction planning.

Relationships

P

art of developing a task organization is assigning

MCEs, including initial command and support 

relationships. This allows units to understand their

roles and responsibilities. (This deliberate assigning of

A U.S. combat engineer helps Romanian soldiers lace their cratering 

charges with white tape to mark where they will be buried at the Cincu 

Training Center.
January–April 2016 Engineer 23

command and support relationships 

often reveals a shortfall in MCEs.)

For AR, USAREUR worked with the 

Department of the Army to resource a 

division tactical MCE. For the Offce 

of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Engineer 

(ODCSENG), a division tactical headquarters (in this case, 4th Infantry Division headquarters) would not provide the 

full complement of engineer expertise 

needed to take the place of a theater engineer command, especially with respect to 

construction. However, the 4th Infantry 

Division engineers could relieve some of the tactical oversight of engineer missions that a corps, division, or brigade 

engineer headquarters would normally provide. Before the 

arrival of the 4th Infantry MCE, tactical oversight of engineer missions resided with ODCSENG. It wasn’t a perfect 

solution, but it freed ODCSENG to provide the technical 

engineering expertise, strategic planning, and scoping 

of projects.

A

s the planning of an operation progresses, the 

resources required may change drastically. When 

.a change in the plan requires a modifcation to the 

task organization, the resourcing team needs to continually ensure that new requests are made to address resource 

shortfalls and that command and support relationships 

remain effective. To capture and communicate the engineer planning effort in support of AR, the plans section of 

ODCSENG developed a scheme of engineer operations that 

outlined the main and supporting efforts for the six AR 

countries. This document became the primary vehicle that 

the engineers used to illustrate how engineer effects in supporting AR would be achieved throughout the year. The 

194th Engineer Brigade, Tennessee Army National Guard, 

and the 877th Engineer Battalion, Alabama Army National 

Guard, are active participants in the SPP. The 194th is partnered with Bulgaria, and the 877th is partnered with Romania. ODCSENG explored employing SPP elements early to 

meet ERI project requirements, but the complexity associated with using SPP elements required a USAREUR commitment. This meant that all of the support relationships 

had to be established before SPP was confrmed. In January 

2015, USAREUR funded the transportation of equipment 

and personnel from both states. Once USAREUR committed 

to SPP, ODCSENG had to adjust the task organization and 

the command and support relationships to accommodate 

these new resources.

Resource planning is a constantly shifting battlefeld that 

requires adaptable thinkers who are capable of applying 

tested techniques and analyses to nontraditional, ambiguous situations. Developing solid justifcations for resources 

is critical for success, and building on that success in 

successive iterations leads to excellence.

A

s this article is being written, ODCSENG is on pace 

to execute all FY 15 ERI commitments in support 

.of AR, and planning for FY 16 stands on the solid 

ground of experience. FY 15 planning and execution have 

highlighted the value of a tactical-level engineer MCE, 

clearly articulating roles and responsibilities between the 

Army service component command and MCE engineers, following logical analyses in determining requirements, and 

requesting resources as early as possible. 

Another lesson that became painfully obvious throughout the FY 15 construction season involved the importance of habitual relationships. When the 4th Infantry 

Division became the division tactical headquarters for AR, 

USAREUR was already executing projects and running exercises. USAREUR and the division were forced to develop 

roles and responsibilities during these events, and the lack 

of a long-standing, habitual relationship complicated this 

process. The only effective way to overcome this challenge 

is to publish clearly defned command and support relationships, roles, and responsibilities and to constantly reinforce 

them until they become ingrained. This lesson learned is 

most important because it highlights the critical importance 

of constantly training with our NATO allies. Establishing 

hasty relationships was a challenge with two units from the 

same country and branch of service and is exponentially 

harder when working through language barriers and differing equipment. Without consistent presence and partnering, 

interoperability is effectively nonexistent. If interoperability 

is to be the strength of NATO, constant training is the only 

method of achieving effective deterrence in Europe.

Major Jones serves as chief of plans in the Offce of the Deputy 

Chief of Staff, Engineers, USAREUR. He is a graduate of the 

U.S. Air Force Air Staff College, the Engineer 

Captains Career Course, and the Bradley Leaders Course. He 

holds a Master of Military Operational Art and Science degree 

Captain serves as the supply offcer for the 15th Engineer Battalion at Grafenwoehr, He holds a bachelor’s 

degree in civil engineering the U.S. Military 

Point, New York, and a degree in engineering -

ouri University of Science and Technology at 

Rolla. He is a licensed professional engineer in Missouri.

Heavy equipment from the 877th Engineer Battalion and the Romanian Land 

Forces work in unison at the Cincu Training Center.
24 Engineer January–April 2016

W

hether bouncing around in the back of an all-terrain 

truck full of Polish armor offcers at the Drawsko 

Pamorskie Training Area in Poland or laying out 

surface danger zones side by side with Bulgarian Army offcers in the frigid winter winds at the Novo Selo Training 

Area, USAREUR engineers are working ardently today to 

build more interoperability with NATO allies across a broad 

spectrum of engineer operations in the European Theater. 

While USAREUR has been active in these two former Warsaw Pact nations since their accession into NATO, recent 

activities promote new relationships that are being forged following regional tensions with Russia and enduring alliances 

that are being invigorated with a new sense of purpose. 

When President Barack Obama announced during a 

trip to Poland in 2014 that the United States would spend 

$1 billion for ERI, many skeptics across the world viewed 

these initiatives as the revival of a Cold War relic, but this 

couldn’t be further from reality. President Obama was reaffrming the U.S. commitment to supporting a stable, secure 

Europe, of which NATO is a critical cornerstone. Anyone 

working in the 51-country U.S. European Command area of 

operations in the last decade understands how closely U.S. 

forces work with their NATO allies. But some observers still 

believe that NATO is obsolete.

U.S. European Command is deeply invested in operating 

with America’s NATO allies, with USAREUR being particularly active recently. Articles on the USAREUR Web site 

describe military engagements spanning 28 NATO countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Romania, 

Latvia, Estonia, Germany, Italy, and others. In 2010 alone, 

the U.S. military actively carried out, or participated in, 

33 major multinational training exercises with participation by 50,000 troops from 40 European countries. 

With hundreds of engagements and exercises conducted 

in 2015 and more planned for 2016, USAREUR continues to actively engage at all levels with NATO partners. 

Despite possible perceptions to the contrary, NATO and 

the United States have been deeply engaged in developing 

and maintaining strategic, operational, and even tactical 

interoperability. 

Representatives from U.S. Air Force Europe frequently 

work closely with NATO counterparts on complex airfeld 

challenges. In 2010, an airfeld survey 

aimed to reduce dangerous airborne 

debris at Albacete Air Base, Spain, in 

support of the 10 NATO countries training F-16 fghter pilots in the Tactical 

Leadership Program. When the U.S. 

Air Force F-16 squadron at Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany participated in theater security cooperation 

events with its Polish sister squadron 

at Lask Air Base in Poland in 2011, 

an American airfeld pavement engineer subject matter expert coordinated 

a friction evaluation of the Lask runway to ensure pilot safety during wetweather operations. Today, that same 

Lask Air Base runway hosts Poland’s 

national air exercise Eagle Talon, which 

involves U.S., French, British, and other 

NATO aircraft. 

By Mr. Joseph Copeland

This is one in a series of articles concerning engineering support to the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI). It details 

the closer interoperability of U.S. (USAREUR) with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which 

has been achieved with the recent increase in activities due to ERI. For other articles in the series, see Engineer

An Estonian liaison offcer consults with a U.S. Army engineer about potential 

joint engineer construction projects at Tapa, Estonia.
January–April 2016 Engineer 25

U.S. Air Force representatives on a NATO 

airfeld pavement team made up of pavement 

subject matter experts from many nations 

met semiannually for years to initiate, edit, 

and revise NATO standardization agreements 

related to airfeld pavement infrastructure. 

So even before current tensions with Russia, the Air Force was heavily engaged with 

NATO allies and it continues to cooperate 

with NATO militaries. So why does the perception still persist that the United States is 

in a “rebuilding phase” with NATO relationships across Europe? 

This perception may be due to a shrinking defense budget that has prompted reductions in the U.S. military installation footprint in Europe, with subsequent reductions 

in military and civilian personnel overseas. 

The USAREUR Offce of Deputy Chief of Staff, Engineer (ODCSENG) once had an entire branch consisting of 

12 military and civilian engineers supporting NATO efforts 

in areas such as missile air defense sites, forward storage 

sites, emergency water crossings, special weapons, and an 

ammunition program, among others. After the Soviet Union 

fell, these NATO positions were either deemed obsolete and 

refocused or were lost in reductions. These changes might 

lead to the conclusion that U.S. Army engineers have lost 

touch with NATO, but that is not true. Just as the rest of the 

U.S. military has learned to embrace the mantra of “do more 

with less,” the USAREUR staff, specifcally ODCSENG, has 

absorbed the tasks required for NATO interoperability and 

incorporated them across the staff to the point where they 

are married with everyday tasks. These changes have actually led to more NATO interoperability, not less. 

As the U.S. and European economies have shrunk over 

the last 13 years and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have 

taken their toll, U.S. focus shifted to the divestiture and consolidation of main operating bases across central and western Europe, with subsequent strategic positioning of forward 

operating sites in eastern Europe. Once again, the cutbacks 

have not adversely affected support to NATO interoperability. At ODCSENG, daily management of U.S. sites in NATO 

countries such as Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania ensures 

that engagement with NATO counterparts continues to 

build upon strong relationships that have developed over 

the past several years. ODCSENG will continue to engage 

with its military engineer counterparts on a daily basis to 

further develop interoperability by executing infrastructure 

projects that support joint training and exercises with the 

NATO nations initially impacted by ERI—Estonia, Latvia, 

Lithuania, Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania.

However, a number of exciting challenges are beginning 

to take shape as NATO transitions from the International 

Security Assistance Force mission in Afghanistan to the 

mission of ensuring the security of the European theater. 

In some instances, old security plans are being revived 

and updated, while other plans are being newly developed. 

An example of a new plan is the Readiness Action Plan, 

which is the NATO response to changes in the security environment, particularly on the eastern and southern periphery 

of its territory. The Readiness Action Plan is characterized 

by two overarching goals: 1) to assure NATO member populations and deter potential aggression through increased 

military activity; and 2) to adapt the long-term capabilities 

and military posture of the alliance. 

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in 

November 2014 that “The Readiness Action Plan is the biggest reinforcement of our collective defense since the end of 

the Cold War.”1

U.S. Army engineers at ODCSENG are working with 

their NATO counterparts to identify logistic, host nation 

support, and engineer needs being generated by the Readiness Action Plan to proactively execute these critical supporting requirements. 

Whether jointly executing numerous technical engineer 

surveys with NATO partners to identify ERI project requirements; attending a NATO host nation support workshop in 

Krakow, Poland; or providing engineer support for tank 

shipments into Bulgaria, ODCSENG and USAREUR continue to actively engage in NATO assurance and deterrence 

measures in the European theater. We remain committed 

to our NATO allies because we embrace one enduring tenet: 

the United States is stronger with Europe, and Europe is 

stronger through NATO.

Endnote:

1Atlantic Council, “NATO Releases Details of its New Readiness Action Plan,” 2 December 2014, <http://www.atlantic

council.org/blogs/natosource/nato-releases-details-of-its-new

-readiness-action-plan>, accessed on 16 December 2015.

Mr. Copeland is the chief of the Technical Engineer Division 

for ODCSENG, USAREUR. He holds a bachelor’s degree in civil 

engineering 

degree in engineering -

versity. He is a licensed professional engineer in North Carolina.

USAREUR engineers work with representatives from the Polish Ministry 

of National Defence.
26 Engineer January–April 2016

S

oldiers from the Army National Guard and U.S. 

Army Reserve comprise 80 percent of the Engineer 

Regiment, so Army engineers must understand how 

these forces are trained and assessed. First Army engineer 

training support battalions and their combined arms training 

brigades train and assess Reserve Component (RC) units 

across the country according to First Army priorities and 

critical lines of effort (LOEs). This article 

describes the mission, priorities, and LOEs 

of engineer training support battalions and 

presents the major implications for the 

Engineer Regiment. 

The 1st Engineer Battalion, 345th Infantry Regiment, located at Camp Atterbury, 

Indiana, trains RC units from Indiana, 

Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

and Missouri. The 1st Engineer Battalion, 

part of the 157th Infantry Brigade and 

First Army Division East, consists of 

55 to 60 senior Soldiers who partner with 

RC units to advise, assist, and train them 

to achieve directed readiness requirements 

before and after mobilization to support 

the sustainable readiness model. The 

battalion also provides training to joint, 

combined, interagency, and Regular Army 

forces. 

First Army focuses on two priorities—readiness and 

transformation.1 To support those priorities, 1st Engineer 

Battalion concentrates on three LOEs, which include—

■ Establish engaged, habitual partnerships. These 

 partnerships require more than simply providing 

 oversight to RC units. They must build trust between 

 First Army units and RC forces. Therefore, the Soldiers of 

By Lieutenant Colonel Gerald S. Law

A 1st Engineer Battalion OCT observes the objective rally point actions of 

a unit conducting dismounted platoon improvised explosive device clearance during an exercise.
January–April 2016 Engineer 27

 1st Engineer Battalion work to become team members 

 with their partnered units by standing shoulder to 

 shoulder to advise and assist in training management, 

 exercise design, doctrinal education, and mission 

 command.

For example, members of the battalion attend weekend 

battle assemblies and annual training events to help 

RC units develop, assess, and achieve their yearly 

training objectives. Recently, the battalion partnered 

with the 37th Infantry Brigade Special Troops Battalion 

to provide effective observer-controller trainer (OCT) 

support during an exportable combat training capability 

exercise at Camp Grayling, Michigan. By the end of the 

exercise, the 1st Engineer Battalion had increased the 

37th Infantry Brigade Special Troops Battalion unit 

readiness by improving its tactical profciency and ability 

to conduct training management and mission command. 

Ŷ Enable RC commanders. Despite the numerous 

 challenges that RC forces face, commanders must 

 mobilize their units for deployments. Since First Army 

 leaders believe that “their success is our success,” 1st 

 Engineer Battalion OCTs help RC commanders assess 

 and train their units. Developing habitual relationships 

 with Army National Guard and Army Reserve units 

 allows the OCTs to provide relevant and accurate feedback 

 to commanders. For example, they assess the number 

 of days each unit would need at a mobilization station. 

 Since a First Army goal is to minimize the time required at 

 mobilization stations, feedback enables the RC com- 

 manders, which also ensures unit readiness.

Ŷ Develop leaders. Leader development is at the heart 

 of the First Army LOEs. Leaders achieve results, facilitate 

 change, build readiness, develop engaged partnerships, 

 and enable RC commanders. The 1st Engineer Battalion 

 ensures that its personnel are trained and ready to achieve 

 First Army priorities through institutional development, 

 operational development, and self development. 

For example, 1st Engineer Battalion personnel are 

required to complete schooling, courses, and other 

training opportunities to support OCT certifcation, 

which facilitates leader development. OCTs also attend 

rotations at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, 

California; the Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort 

Polk, Louisiana; and exportable combat training centers 

to promote certifcation. 

Finally, 1st Engineer Battalion OCTs must explain 

their qualifcations before assuming duties with First 

Army. OCT certifcation is not obtained by attending 

classes alone. OCTs must demonstrate their profciency 

through demonstrations and verbal and written tests. 

Commanders have many priorities, but none are achievable without leaders. Therefore, the 1st Engineer Battalion works to develop mentally agile leaders who are 

critical thinkers capable of achieving results. 

First Army priorities and LOEs have many implications 

for the Engineer Regiment. Since 80 percent of the Engineer 

Regiment consists of RC units, First Army priorities and 

LOEs affect most of the engineer force. Although training 

evaluation and assessment standards are identical for RC 

and Regular Army forces, RC forces have only 39 days per 

year to achieve those standards. Therefore, establishing 

engaged, habitual partnerships between First Army and 

the Engineer Regiment is necessary to develop and meet 

RC training goals. Finally, the Army is reducing its forces 

An OCT observes a platoon level breach at Camp Grayling, Michigan.
28 Engineer January–April 2016

and must rely on Army National Guard and Army Reserve 

forces to accomplish national security goals.2 Therefore, 

by concentrating on RC premobilization training, First 

Army units work to reduce RC postmobilization training 

time. Developing partnerships with RC engineer units will 

minimize postmobilization time and resources. 

Establishing habitual partnerships, enabling RC commanders, and developing leaders are critical tasks for First 

Army and RC success. The 1st Engineer Battalion works 

continuously to help RC commanders with unit training 

management, exercise design, doctrinal education, and 

mission command, thereby increasing their unit readiness. 

The First Army team and its engineer training support 

battalions play a vital role in assessing and increasing 

readiness for most of the Engineer Regiment.

An assignment in First Army is professionally rewarding. 

Engineers who join the First Army team help prepare RC 

Soldiers, leaders, commanders, and units across the United 

States for the wide range of contingency expeditionary-force 

missions facing the Army. Members of the First Army team 

can grow professionally as Army leaders while working to 

make good units great by providing expertise and experience 

through coaching, teaching, and mentoring. Soldiers 

interested in joining First Army or obtaining additional 

information on becoming an OCT should see their U.S. 

Army Human Resources Command manager, e-mail First 

Army at <usarmy.ria.1-army.mbx.frst-army-hq-pao@mail

.mil>, or visit <www.frst.army.mil>.

Endnotes:

1

“Command Training Guidance for Fiscal Year 2016,” First 

Army memorandum, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, 15 July 

2015.

2”Stand-To! The Offcial Focus of the U.S. Army,” 

Force Policy—Reserve Training Integration, 21 May 

2014, <http://www.army.mil/standto/archive_2014-05-21/>, 

accessed on 25 February 2016.

Lieutenant Colonel Law is the 

157th Infantry Brigade, 

Atterbury. He is a graduate of the U.S. 

Staff School and the U.S. 

General Staff College. He holds a bachelor’s degree in industrial 

engineering 

in geology and geophysic of Missouri–

Rolla (now Missouri University of Science and Technology); a 

science fr U.S. 

General Staff College; and degree 

in adult, occupational, and continuing education Kansas 

State University.

Photos by Lieutenant Colonel Gerald S. Law.

Engineer is always looking for good quality, action photographs (no “grip and grins,” please) to use on the outside 

covers. If you have photographs of Soldiers who are in the 

proper, current uniform and are participating in training events 

or operations or photographs of current, branch-related equipment that is being used during training or operations, please 

send them to us at <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx 

.engineer@mail.mil>. Ensure that photographs depict proper 

safety and security procedures, and do not send copyrighted 

photographs. All photographs must be high-resolution; most 

photographs obtained from the Internet, made smaller for 

e-mailing, or saved from an electronic fle such as a Microsoft®

PowerPoint or Word document cannot be used for print. In 

addition, please include a caption that describes the photograph and identifes the subject(s) and photographer (if 

known). Please see our photograph guide at <http://www.wood 

.army.mil/engrmag/Photograph%20Illustration%20Guide.htm> 

for more detailed information.

We Need Your Photographs!
January–April 2016 Engineer 29

E

ngineer is a Department of the Army-authenticated publication that contains instructions, guidance, and other 

materials to continuously improve the professional development of Army engineers. It also provides a forum for exchanging information and ideas within the Army engineer community. 

Engineer includes articles by and about commissioned offcers, 

warrant offcers, enlisted Soldiers, Department of the Army civilians, and others. Writers may discuss training, current operations and exercises, doctrine, equipment, history, personal viewpoints, or other areas of general interest to engineers. Articles 

may share good ideas and lessons learned or explore better ways 

of doing things. Shorter, after action type articles and reviews of 

books on engineer topics are also welcome.

Articles should be concise, straightforward, and in the 

active voice. Avoid using acronyms when possible. When used, 

acronyms must be spelled out and identifed at the frst use. 

Avoid the use of bureaucratic jargon and military buzzwords. 

Text length should not exceed 2,000 words (about eight doublespaced pages). 

Articles submitted to Engineer must be accompanied by a 

written release from the author’s unit or activity security manager before editing can begin. All information contained in an 

article must be unclassifed, nonsensitive, and releasable to the 

public. It is the author’s responsibility to ensure that security 

is not compromised; information appearing in open sources 

does not constitute declassifcation. Engineer is distributed to 

military units worldwide and is also available for sale by the 

Government Printing Offce. As such, it is readily accessible 

to nongovernmental or foreign individuals and organizations. 

For convenience, a user-fllable security release memorandum 

is provided at <http://www.wood.army.mil/engrmag/Security

%20Release%20Form%20cx.docx>. 

Authors are responsible for article accuracy and source 

documentation. Use endnotes (not footnotes) and references to 

document sources of quotations, information, and ideas. Limit 

the number of endnotes to the minimum required for honest 

acknowledgment. Endnotes and references must contain a complete citation of publication data; for Internet citations, include 

the date accessed. 

Include photographs and/or graphics that illustrate information in the article. Graphics must be accompanied by captions 

or descriptions; photographs should also be identifed with the 

date, location, unit/personnel, and activity, as applicable. Do not 

embed photographs in Microsoft® PowerPoint or Word or include 

photographs or illustrations in the text; instead, send each of 

them as a separate fle. If illustrations are created in PowerPoint, avoid the excessive use of color and shading. Save digital images at a resolution no lower than 200 dpi. Please see the 

photo guide at <http://www.wood.army.mil/engrmag/Photograph 

%20Illustration%20Guide.htm> for more information.

Copyright concerns and the proliferation of methods used to 

disseminate art, illustrations, and photographs require that the 

origin of any graphics be identifed. If a graphic is copyrighted, 

the author must obtain copyright approval and submit it to 

Engineer with the proposed manuscript. As a general policy, 

Engineer will not use artwork that cannot be attributed. 

Provide a short paragraph that summarizes the content 

of the article. Also include a short biography, including full 

name, rank, current unit, job title, and education; U.S. Postal 

Service mailing address; and a commercial daytime telephone number.

When an article has multiple authors, the primary point of 

contact should be clearly designated with the initial submission. The designated author will receive all correspondence 

from Engineer editors and will be responsible for conferring 

with coauthors concerning revisions before responding to 

the editors.

Engineer will notify each author to acknowledge receipt 

of a manuscript. However, we make no fnal commitment to 

publish an article until it has been thoroughly reviewed and, 

if required, revised to satisfy concerns and conform to publication conventions. We make no guarantee to publish all submitted articles, photographs, or illustrations. If we plan to publish 

an article, we will notify the author. Therefore, it is important 

to keep us informed of changes in e-mail addresses and telephone numbers. 

Manuscripts submitted to Engineer become government 

property upon receipt. All articles accepted for publication are 

subject to grammatical and structural changes as well as editing for length, clarity, and conformity to Engineer style. We will 

send substantive changes to the author for approval. Authors 

will receive a courtesy copy of the edited version for review 

before publication; however, if the author does not respond to 

Engineer with questions or concerns by a specifed suspense 

date (typically fve to seven working days), it will be assumed 

that the author concurs with all edits and the article will 

run as is.

Engineer is published three times a year: April (article deadline is 1 December), August (article deadline is 1 April), and 

December (article deadline is 1 August). Send submissions

by e-mail to <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.engineer@mail 

.mil> or on a CD in Microsoft Word, along with a double-spaced 

copy of the manuscript, to Managing Editor, Engineer Professional Bulletin, 14010 MSCoE Loop, Building 3201, Suite 2661, 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8702.

As an offcial U.S. Army publication, Engineer is not copyrighted. Material published in Engineer can be freely reproduced, distributed, displayed, or reprinted; however, appropriate credit should be given to Engineer and its authors.

Note: Please indicate if a manuscript is being considered for 

publication elsewhere. Due to regulatory requirements and the 

limited space per issue, we usually do not print articles that 

have been accepted for publication at other Army venues.

Engineer Writer’s Gui e
30 Engineer January–April 2016

D

owned-aircraft recovery is an aviation term used to 

describe a specifc mission performed by the aviation 

community in the unfortunate event of a downed aircraft. Typically, an engineer would not discuss such a misfortune and such a mission with the engineer community. However, as the commander of Headquarters Support Company, 

404th Aviation Support Battalion, I provided recommendations and advice to the battalion commander based on the 

four lines of engineer support. Field Manual 3-34, Engineer 

Operations,

1

 explains how (not what) to think about exploiting the capabilities of the Engineer Regiment in support of 

military operations. It describes how engineers combine the 

skills and organizations of the three interrelated engineer 

disciplines (combat, general, and geospatial engineering) to 

provide support that helps ground force commanders—

■ Assure mobility.

■ Enhance protection.

■ Enable force projection and logistics.

■ Build partner capacity and develop infrastructure among

 populations and nations.

Field Manual 3-34 states that the Engineer Regiment 

exists to provide freedom of action for land power by mitigating the effects of terrain.2

 This article highlights how my 

company incorporated the engineer mission and integrated 

the lines of engineer support and how the lines of support 

were used during the downed-aircraft recovery team mission at Fort Carson, Colorado. 

The security of the downed aircraft was the top priority 

during the operation. We used the framework of two of the 

four lines of engineer support—assure mobility and enhance 

protection—during this phase of the operation. The frst step 

By Captain Garrett D. Anderson

Soldiers remove crash debris to allow supplies to be 

dropped in at the site.
January–April 2016 Engineer 31

was to conduct terrain analysis of the area and provide the battalion with intelligence about the routes 

to the crash site from a helicopter landing zone located 

roughly a mile away from the site through densely 

forested terrain with elevations reaching more than 

9,000 feet. Headquarters Support Company supplied 

the battalion with graphics to illustrate the dense 

terrain and provide the commander with a visual 

sense of the area of operations from which the aircraft would be recovered. 

In navigating to the crash site from the helicopter landing zone, we found easier routes that would 

be more conducive to the transportation of food and 

water to the security force to be stationed near the 

downed aircraft. Once on the ground, we facilitated 

the security of the aircraft. In an overwatch position, we used the terrain to our advantage to safely 

intercept any passersby. Working with frefghters 

and representatives from the U.S. Forest Service and 

the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land 

Management, we established a hasty drop site. This 

required preventing fuel contamination of the site 

and downing some trees that kept recovery workers 

from sling loading the wreckage. The clearing of the 

trees also enabled the battalion to drop frefghting 

tools and maintenance recovery items directly on the 

site instead of transporting them across rough terrain with limited personnel. Referencing two lines of 

engineer support, we were able to enhance protection 

and ensure the mobility of the aircraft.

Establishing an integration cell at the landing zone was 

the secondary priority for Headquarters Support Company. 

Although this was no base camp, aerial port of debarkation, 

or surface port of debarkation, the landing zone served a 

similar purpose. All personnel passed through the integration cell at the landing zone for accountability before continuing to the security site and when returning from the site 

for the out. The integration cell also maintained communications and served as a hub for resupply of food, water, 

and medical supplies. Sleeping quarters accommodated up 

to 15 Soldiers, with sustainment for 72 hours to mitigate 

possible danger from the ever-changing Colorado weather. 

The site was manned 24/7 throughout the operation to provide a secondary mission command node and to enable the 

operations cell at the battalion headquarters to monitor the 

operation with little interference in daily operations. This 

task can be directly linked to the line of engineer support of 

enabling force projection and expeditionary logistics.

The restoration of the forest was a top priority for 

the two federal agencies in the task force, and it is directly 

linked to the line of engineer support of building partner 

capacity and developing infrastructure among populations 

and nations. Working hand in hand with frefghters and 

representatives from the Forest Service and the Bureau of 

Land Management, the battalion ensured that the site was 

left in a state that protected the forest from natural hazards 

such as and fres. The battalion efforts helped return 

the forest to its natural state at an accelerated rate. This 

would not have been possible without the partnership that 

the battalion had formed with the other entities. The coordination and capacity of the battalion to work as a liaison was 

key to the success and closure of the operation. 

Throughout the downed-aircraft recovery team operation, Headquarters Support Company and 404th Aviation 

Battalion used the lines of engineer support, highlighted 

the engineer mission, and showed that an operation doesn’t 

have to be an engineer-centric ground mission for the lines 

of engineer support to serve as a guide for success. During 

this operation, engineers ensured mobility by providing 

routes from the landing site to the security site; established 

security and enhanced the protection of the aircraft; enabled 

expeditionary logistics with a site integration setup; and 

built partner capacity by working with federal, state, and 

Endnotes:

1Field Manual 3-34, Engineer Operations, 2 April 2014.

2

Ibid.

Captain Anderson is a graduate of the Engineer Offcer 

Basic Leader and Captains Career Courses. He holds a bachelor of science degree State University, Fayetteville, North Carolina; and a of -

He 

is the of Headquarters Support 

Aviation Support Battalion, Fort Carson.

Soldiers and frefghters work together to right the aircraft.
32 Engineer January–April 2016

A

ccording to Army Regulation 34-1, Multinational 

Force Interoperability, “The changing security envi- 

.ronment presents a complex range of threats, challenges, and opportunities, making it likely that U.S. forces 

will be called on to operate under a broad variety of conditions and with many foreign partners. U.S. forces will 

mitigate risks through better force management and 

increased military-to-military interoperability with allies 

and foreign partners.”1 Within this context, U.S. Army leaders in an era of military downsizing must be prepared to 

integrate allied units into their formations to ensure the 

future success of U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) operations. The Joint Multinational Readiness 

Center (JMRC) in Hohenfels, Germany, is the primary training and proving ground to achieve multinational integration 

and interoperability. This article describes the following 

challenges and associated lessons learned in integrating 

allied engineer units into a U.S.-led multinational brigade:

■ Understanding of allied engineer capabilities and 

 limitations.

■ Familiarity with NATO Standardization Agreements 

 (STANAGS) and allied engineer doctrine.

■ Consideration of national land mine policies and caveats. 

■ Establishment of effective communications.

Understanding of allied engineer capabilities and 

limitations. To properly integrate allied engineers into 

a U.S.-led multinational brigade, it is essential that the 

brigade engineer battalion (BEB) commander, staff, and 

assistant brigade engineer understand allied engineer 

capabilities and limitations. The best way to acquire that 

understanding is by conducting bilateral capabilities 

By Captain Jeffrey R. Rickard

A Moldovan soldier 

provides explosive 

ordnance disposal support to a U.S. engineer 

platoon. 

A

p

o

p

p
January–April 2016 Engineer 33

briefngs. Not only should the subordinate attached elements brief 

their capabilities, but the receiving 

headquarters should also defne its 

capabilities and clarify the limitations and restrictions of command 

and support relationships. 

In addition to the opportunity to 

build trust with, and rapport within, 

the multinational unit, the understanding gained from a detailed 

capabilities brief provides the commander and staff with the information needed to leverage capabilities, 

develop tasks and purposes, and 

determine effective task organization structures. A failure to identify capabilities and limitations has 

resulted in a lack of integration, 

coordination, and synchronization at 

multiple levels within multinational 

brigades while training at JMRC.

During Exercise Combined Resolve IV at JMRC in May 

and June 2015, a U.S. Army BEB received Romanian and 

Danish engineer platoons. Looking at the task organization, it might seem that the BEB gained additional engineer assets to complete its mission of providing mobility, 

countermobility, and survivability support to the brigade. 

However, the reality was more complex than that. For 

example, the Romanian engineer platoon was depicted 

in the exercise task organization as a motorized engineer 

platoon. To a BEB commander and his staff, that might imply 

that the attached unit is capable of emplacing or reducing 

obstacles and performing other tasks similar to those that 

a U.S. Army engineer platoon could accomplish. However, 

the Romanian engineer platoon leader described unit capabilities and tactics, techniques, and procedures differently in 

the capabilities briefng to the BEB commander and his staff 

before the start of the exercise. In reality, the platoon was 

an engineer reconnaissance element capable of conducting 

forward reconnaissance of enemy obstacles, but with limited 

mobility, countermobility, and survivability assets. 

On the other hand, the attached Danish engineer platoon 

brought capabilities that a BEB commander would expect 

from a U.S. engineer platoon. The Danish platoon consisted of two armored engineer squads, an armored recovery squad, and a horizontal construction section. During his 

capabilities brief, the Danish platoon leader explained his 

unit’s mobility, countermobility, and survivability tactics, 

techniques, and procedures while highlighting the unique 

capabilities it could provide from its armored mine-clearing 

vehicle, armored engineer vehicle, and armored bridge layer. 

With the information gained from the capabilities brief, 

the BEB commander, staff, and assistant brigade engineer 

were more prepared to conduct analyses and make informed 

decisions on how best to leverage their allied engineer attachment capabilities, underwrite attachment limitations, and 

properly integrate the attachments into the maneuver plan. 

Familiarity with NATO STANAGS and allied engineer doctrine. One of the recurring lessons learned from 

observing several multinational brigades training at JMRC 

is that BEB commanders and their staffs must be familiar with NATO STANAGs and the engineer doctrine of the 

attached unit to integrate, coordinate, and synchronize operations more effectively. 

Romanian and U.S. engineers emplace wire obstacles.

Romanian and U.S. engineer platoon leaders 

discuss the emplacement of an obstacle group.
34 Engineer January–April 2016

In particular, familiarity with, and adherence to, NATO 

STANAG 2036, Land Mine Laying, Marking, Recording and 

Reports Procedures,2 and STANAG 2989, Transfer of Barriers,

3

 are required to create a common operating picture 

within the multinational brigade. Many U.S. and allied 

engineer units that train at JMRC default to using their own 

tactical standard operating procedures due to an unfamiliarity with NATO STANAGs. That lack of knowledge, observed 

over multiple training rotations, has resulted in confusion 

between U.S. and allied units. More importantly, the failure to use NATO STANAG reporting procedures results in 

an unclear common operating picture and is a contributing 

factor to fratricidal incidents. 

If NATO STANAGS are not used, the U.S.-led multinational brigade standards for obstacle handover and 

turnover and land mine laying, 

marking, recording, and reporting 

must be clearly communicated to, 

and understood by, all elements 

within the multinational brigade 

before operations commence. This 

facilitates a common operating picture and a common understanding 

across the brigade leadership that 

helps prevent confusion and possible fratricide.

In addition to a familiarity with 

NATO STANAGs, a baseline knowledge of attached allied engineer doctrine and tactics, techniques, and 

procedures contributes signifcantly 

to proper integration. For instance, 

understanding how an attached 

allied engineer element will reduce one vehicle lane through 

a tactical obstacle is important when considering how it will 

affect the tempo of the maneuver assault force. Many of the 

allied engineer units that train at JMRC conduct extremely 

deliberate reductions that take much more time than a 

deliberate or hasty breach conducted by U.S. engineers. 

Additionally, according to Field Manual 3-16, The 

Multinational Operations, “while U.S. brigade combat team 

commanders are accustomed to the decentralized integration 

of engineer operations at the tactical level, former Warsaw 

Pact nations have traditionally employed engineer assets in 

a much more centralized manner at the division and corps 

level. As a result, tactical commanders develop engineering tasks associated with building integrated obstacles and 

mutually supporting engagement areas at the battalion and 

brigade level. An understanding of these tasks 

and other differing doctrinal traditions manage 

expectations and result in greater integration of 

multinational forces.”4

Consideration of national land mine 

policies and caveats. Each nation represented within a multinational brigade has its 

own national policy and caveats regarding land 

mines. Therefore, it is imperative for U.S. commanders to understand those policies and caveats to properly integrate the allied elements into 

their formations. 

For example, many NATO allies are signatories of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and 

Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their 

Destruction (the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty) 

and have agreed not to use antipersonnel land 

mines.5 However, some of those nations still 

authorize the employment of persistent antitank mines in accordance with their national 

caveats. Although not a signatory to the convention, the U.S. government announced on 

23 September 2014 that the United States will 

t

m

m

a

w

b

f

t

a

h

s

N

e

t

p

t

b

a

e

m

p

s

o

m

m

a

t

n

t

T

D

a

m

a

t

c

A Danish engineer armored vehicle prepares fascine to reduce a dry gap.

A Romanian engineer platoon leader conducts a capabilities briefng 

to a U.S. BEB commander and staff.
January–April 2016 Engineer 35

not use antipersonnel land 

mines outside the Korean 

peninsula and is taking steps 

to end the use of all undetectable mines and persistent 

mines.6 U.S. commanders 

must consider whether their 

subordinate allied engineers, 

whose national caveats may 

allow the use of persistent 

antitank mines, will be authorized to use them under the 

rules of engagement established for the operation—and 

whether those units will be 

authorized to conduct obstacle handover/turnover with 

U.S. maneuver elements of 

minefelds consisting of persistent mines. 

Developing solutions to the challenges that arise as a 

result of differing national policies and caveats is a critical 

component of properly integrating allied engineers. Early 

discussions of these constraints will ensure that commanders are aware of the challenges and have ample time to 

develop legal alternatives.

Establishment of effective communications. Establishing effective communications is critical to integrating 

allied engineers. In addition to the interoperability challenges associated with differing languages, cultures, communications equipment, and mission command systems, 

other challenges such as the U.S. Army propensity to use 

acronyms, slang, and other shortcuts compound the diffculty in communicating effectively with allies and partners. 

As identifed from numerous multinational training exercises at JMRC, best practices to mitigate these challenges 

include— 

■ Minimal use of acronyms during briefngs and radio

 transmissions. U.S. Army acronym cut-sheets should be 

 issued to allied elements for reference.

■ Use of analog operational graphics and obstacle overlays 

 to compensate for differing battlefeld command systems.

■ Exchange of knowledgeable liaison offcers who are inte-

 grated into the battle rhythm and are contributors during 

 meetings. 

■ Collaborative planning and issuance of early warning 

 orders.

■ Detailed rehearsals and confrmation backbriefs with

 allies and partners.

Conclusion

A

pplying the points made in this article will contribute to creating a greater shared understanding 

.between U.S. Army engineers and our multinational 

engineer allies and partners. The points can also be applied 

across all elements within the multinational brigade. Many 

of the challenges associated with integrating allied maneuver, fres, intelligence, signal, and sustainment elements 

into a U.S.-led multinational brigade are very similar. Recognizing the challenges associated with effectively integrating allied elements and applying lessons learned to improve 

the integration process will help us leverage capabilities and 

contribute to successful future U.S. and NATO operations. 

Endnotes:

1Army Regulation 34-1, Multinational Force Interoperability, 

10 July 2015.

2NATO STANAG 2036, Ed. 6, Land Mine Laying, Marking, 

Recording and Reporting Procedures, 27 January 2005.

3NATO STANAG 2989, Transfer of Barriers, 31 January 

1985.

4Field Manual 3-16, The , 

8 April 2014.

5

“Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines 

and on their Destruction,” United Nations Treaty Collection, 18 September 1997, <https://treaties.un.org/pages 

/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-5&chapter 

=26&lang=en>, accessed on 30 November 2015.

6U.S. Department of State—Diplomacy In Action, “U.S. 

Landmine Policy,” <http://www.state.gov/t/pm/wra/c11735.

htm>, accessed on 30 November 2015.

Captain Rickard is an engineer observer-coach trainer at 

JMRC. He holds a bachelor’s degree in history Austin Peay 

State University in Clarksville, Tennessee. He has served in the 

Danish engineers provide security while their platoon emplaces an obstacle group.
36 Engineer January–April 2016

T

he U.S. Army offers a number of interesting jobs in 

unique locations that sometimes seem mysterious 

and in nearly unattainable positions in which only 

privileged individuals get the chance to serve. The Military 

Personnel Exchange Program (MPEP) falls into these categories. The aim of this article is to remove some of the mystery and to educate junior offcers about the MPEP positions 

available to engineers. It describes the duties and responsibilities of MPEP participants, the personal and professional 

development opportunities the program offers, the challenges and opportunities of living abroad, and the positions 

currently available.

The MPEP is governed by Army Regulation (AR) 614-10, 

Services of Other Nations; administered by the Department 

of the Army; and overseen by the Army Deputy Chief of Staff 

for Operations, Plans, and Training. The regulation covers 

the major aspects of the program, such as personnel responsible for control; the chain of command structure, objectives, 

selection criteria, administrative procedures; and fnancial 

and legal policies. It lays out four main program objectives:

■ Support the priorities of AR 11-31, Security Cooper- 

 ationPolicy, the Army Security Cooperation Strategy, U.S. 

 Department of Defense guidance, combatant command 

 and/or commander campaign plans, and the Army Cam- 

 paign Support Plan.

■ Strengthen alliances and relationships with coalition part- 

 ners by building partner capacity and maintaining or 

 enhancing relationships in support of a global strategy.

■ Increase defense cooperation by integrating U.S. and 

 partner nation military personnel working in valid posi- 

 tions at the unit level.

■ Provide a framework through bilateral exchanges of mili- 

 tary personnel that prepares offcers and noncommis-

 sioned offcers for future assignments in support of multi-

 national operations.1

With the international events that are constantly playing out on the world stage, it is increasingly more important to foster and grow our relationships and ties with our 

coalition partners.

Individual duties and responsibilities vary depending on 

the MPEP position. Many are branch-specifc, but some are 

branch-immaterial. AR 614-10 states that “Exchange personnel are given meaningful and responsible assignments 

commensurate with their grade and qualifcations and are 

integrated into the sponsoring organization as though they 

belong to the military Service to which they are assigned.”2

This description is somewhat vague because duties and 

responsibilities can shift, and the exchange offcer must 

be adaptable or risk becoming irrelevant. The MPEP participant is not a liaison offcer and should not to be given 

additional duties that fall outside the partnered nation’s job 

specifcations for the position. Typically, there are already 

liaison offcers with the partnered nation’s military headquarters, so it would be redundant for the MPEP offcer to 

perform such tasks. Other additional duties might include—

■ Hosting senior offcers and other offcials.

■ Writing reports on various topics.

■ Attending social or ceremonial events.

■ Performing other miscellaneous tasks related to repre- 

 senting the U.S. Army. 

Possessing an extroverted personality is not required, but 

enjoying the many opportunities to engage individuals and 

groups in various settings is necessary to represent the U.S. 

Army well. There are almost endless opportunities for selfdevelopment for exchange offcers. The professional opportunities are easy to identify because supervisors, coworkers, 

and fellow exchange offcers can help develop a list of events 

to attend and places to visit. Partnered nation representatives want exchange offcers to quickly understand the system so they can perform to the best of their abilities. But 

exchange offcers must seek out and create their own opportunities to become regular members of the team. Professional development opportunities can range from attending 

military lectures and demonstrations to visiting memorials, 

headquarters, training exercises, or other exchange offcers.

While professional opportunities can be limited due to 

access and security clearances, personal development can be 

limited by time and funding. It is important for the exchange 

offcer to start a calendar review for the length of the assignment and determine which national events, such as national 

or international competitions, festivals, or special performances, to attend. Access might be limited, and requests 

might need to be submitted months in advance. Since MPEP 

assignments typically last 2 years, prior planning may be 

critical for special events that take place only once a year. 

In addition to opportunities for MPEP participants, there 

are also challenges that must be overcome. There are the 

obvious cultural and linguistic barriers for assignments in 

a non-English-speaking country. (I have found that there 

are challenges in understanding the culture and language 

even while serving with the British Army—despite sharing 

By Major Mark R. Allen
January–April 2016 Engineer 37

the same language.) Most of the challenges arise from deciphering military acronyms and structures and understanding the systems used to handle day-to-day business. There 

is no doubt that challenges will surface from work, to home, 

to social settings, and everywhere in between. It is important for the exchange offcer to embrace the challenge, learn 

from it, and make the best effort to resolve or eliminate the 

challenge for future replacements. In the end, the challenges 

usually develop into good stories.

Another area that can present a special challenge is that 

of managing household and living situations. Exchange 

offcers are usually not stationed at U.S. military facilities. This can severely challenge the ability to manage the 

unique administrative requirements of living abroad, especially for those who are living on the local economy rather 

than in host nation military housing. Expenses and debt can 

rapidly accumulate, depending on how quickly administrative paperwork is processed and how promptly government 

reimbursements are paid. Navigating educational options 

for children is another hurdle that requires careful consideration. Finally, establishing medical support can present 

challenges, especially for exchange offcers with a Family 

member who is enrolled in the Army’s Exceptional Family 

Member Program. Tricare® has an international support 

plan, but there are other possibilities as well. While there 

may be hardships, there are always solutions if one looks 

long and hard enough.

On the professional side of the assignment, maintaining 

a relationship with a senior rater can be diffcult. Typically, 

the exchange offcer’s rater is an immediate supervisor from 

the partnered nation. The senior rater is a senior offcer 

from the supporting Army service component command. 

The U.S. Army Europe deputy chief of staff for engineering 

serves as the senior rater for engineer MPEP positions in 

Europe. It can be a struggle to maintain visibility for rating 

purposes, but regular contact can be sustained by submitting monthly reports, making telephone calls, sending regular e-mail, and making periodic visits. There is MPEP funding for individuals to visit or host their senior raters twice a 

year. Ultimately, the strength of an exchange offcer’s report 

boils down to the relationship fostered with the individual’s 

rating chain.

Staying current and up to date with what is happening within the Engineer Branch and the Army as a whole 

is another professional challenge. It would be possible for 

an MPEP participant to completely “unplug” from the U.S. 

Army, though that would make it diffcult for the offcer to 

stay relevant and useful to the partnered nation. In many 

instances, the exchange offcer is that nation’s link to the 

U.S. Army. An exchange offcer who is out of touch with doctrine and policy diminishes the relevance and utility of the 

exchange position.

There are about 134 MPEP positions in the Army, with 

more than 60 in U.S. Army Europe. Only two of those are 

engineer positions, both of which are located in the United 

Kingdom. One is for a senior major serving as an instructor 

in the British Army engineer school. The other position is for 

a senior captain serving as an observer-controller. Both of 

these positions have been flled by engineer offcers for more 

than 20 years. Another continuously flled MPEP engineer 

position is for an exchange offcer in Australia. Interested 

individuals should talk to their Human Resource Command 

assignment offcer about flling one of these assignments. 

The assignment offcers are responsible for submitting the 

initial recommendations to fll the slots. Recommendations 

must be approved by the Department of the Army and the 

host nation.

The background and performance of the applicant are 

key items that the decisionmaking process. Ideal 

candidates have platoon to battalion staff offcer experience in an engineer battalion. Time spent in a training 

environment, such as the National Training Center, Fort 

Irwin, California; the Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort 

Polk, Louisiana; the Joint Multinational Readiness Center, 

Hohenfels, Germany; or the U.S. Army Engineer School, 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, adds value and credibility. 

Completing leadership training such as the Sapper Leader 

Course or U.S. Army Ranger School also enhances an applicant’s profle and demonstrates a willingness to take on 

challenges. Lastly, an offcer’s performance is an important 

factor in the selection process because those who hold MPEP 

positions are a of the U.S. Army Engineer Corps 

and the U.S. Army.

The MPEP offers unique and rewarding opportunities 

for those given the privilege to represent the U.S. Army. 

Exchange offcers learn about the commitment and professionalism of the armies of our partnered nations and gain a 

better understanding of the stature of the U.S. Army. Interested offcers should contact their branch managers and 

make their interest known before their assignment cycle. 

Cheers!

Endnotes:

1AR 11-31, Security Cooperation Policy, 21 March 2013.

2AR 614-10, 

with Military Services of Other Nations, 14 July 2011.

Major Allen is an MPEP exchange offcer serving as an 

instructor at the Royal School of Military Engineering. He holds 

a bachelor’s degree in engineering the U.S. MiliPoint, New in 

engineering University of Science 

and Technology at Rolla.

“Professional development opportunities can range from attending military lectures and demonstrations to visiting memorials, 

headquarters, training exercises, or other exchange offcers.”
38 Engineer January–April 2016

A

typical advanced individual training (AIT) company trains a single military occupational specialty 

.(MOS). Company B, 169th Engineer Battalion, 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, trains about 1,300 members of the U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Navy, U.S. 

Air Force, and the militaries of allied partners every year 

in a variety of diverse engineer skills. The company also 

has administrative control of the battalion headquarters 

and the Sapper Leader Course. This article provides a 

description of each MOS taught by Company B, some lessons learned, and initiatives that can aid in the U.S. Army 

credentialing effort.

D

iver candidates begin with Phase I 

at Fort Leonard Wood, with only the 

most qualifed proceeding to Phase II 

training at the U.S. Army Dive School in 

Panama City, Florida. Phase I Diver School 

is a physically rigorous, 14-day course. 

On Day 1, diver candidates take a drownproofng test and a ftness test that consists

of a 500-yard swim within 14 minutes, 

42 push-ups in 2 minutes, 50 sit-ups in 

2 minutes, 6 pull-ups, and a 1.5-mile run in 

less than 12.5 minutes. For the remainder 

of the 14 days of Phase I, diver candidates 

chart basic dives in a classroom and study 

diving physics, gas laws, basic medicine, 

and anatomy. 

Upon the completion of Phase I, candidates move to Panama City to begin the 

26-week Phase II course, though some 

of them face a long wait before making 

the move. Due to the limited bed space at 

Panama City, candidates may stay at Fort 

Leonard Wood for weeks, with the temptation to let physical training slide. The Company B training cadre have created a physical training plan that mitigates stagnation 

between Phase I and Phase II training, 

reducing failure rates. Even with the special training plan, only 46 percent of Phase I 

students graduate from Phase II. 

T

he MOS 12R course is a 6-week program that transforms recent Army 

basic training graduates into skilled 

Soldiers who are fully capable of supplying electric power to anywhere from temporary housing in a training environment 

to a tactical operation center in a theater 

of operations. Students practice operating the Army 5- and 10-kilowatt generator sets and installing the portable Distribution Illumination System, Electrical. 

Students learn from experienced civilian and noncommissioned offcer instructors with diverse Army engineering 

backgrounds. Through classroom instruction and hands-on 

training, Soldiers learn the basics of electrical theory, the 

installation of service entrance systems, the rough-in of 

electrical cable and conduit, the troubleshooting of electrical circuits, and the installation of most common electrical devices. An overview of foreign electrical standards 

and equipment ensures that the new interior electricians 

are ready to operate overseas. Soldiers pass the course by 

successfully completing a 52-hour live-power test, in which 

they must use the skills they have acquired to install a 

By Captain Andrew G. L. Taylor, First Lieutenant Daniel C. 

eant Jared S. Wenzel
January–April 2016 Engineer 39

complete electrical system, which is then tested by energizing 12 individual circuits. The course has a high graduation rate, with 41 classes numbering a total of 300 students graduating in fscal year 2015. Course personnel work 

directly with the 75th Ranger Regiment, training engineer 

Rangers via a 2-week crash course to prepare for upcoming 

deployments. Updates to the National Electric Code every 

4 years require alterations to the course program of instruction. Most 12R engineers work closely with carpentry/

masonry specialists (MOS 12W) and plumbers (MOS 12K) 

upon arrival at their units. These three MOSs, along with 

construction engineering supervisors (MOS 12H), represent the core of the Army’s vertical-construction capability. 

These Soldiers are instrumental in force protection and the 

improvement of Soldier quality of life in the theater of operations. The 12R course proudly sends fully qualifed interior 

electricians to their frst duty assignments, ensuring that 

they can immediately contribute to the mission at hand. 

S

oldiers with MOS 12T are actually technical engineer 

specialists, but they are usually referred to simply as 

surveyors. Surveying is the collection of three dimension points (northing, easting, and elevation) and the distance and angles between them. The data represents the 

location of objects on the earth and is used to make realistic 

models of the terrain. 

That description is a great oversimplifcation; the moniker of technical engineer specialist is worn as a badge of 

honor. Surveyors share a lineage with former presidents 

and the men who paved the way for the expansion of our 

young Nation. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson 

once served as surveyor generals of the colony of Virginia, 

while Abraham Lincoln was a deputy county surveyor in Illinois. There is probably no better example of surveyor courage and tenacity than that of the Corps of Discovery, led by 

Merriweather Lewis and William Clark. It is an honor to 

share the same profession as former presidents, Founding 

Fathers, and intrepid explorers; but surveying represents 

only one-third of what a 12T technical engineer specialist is 

trained to do.

A technical engineer specialist is also a draftsman and a 

geotechnical engineer. It would be diffcult to fnd an individual practicing all three trades in the private sector because 

for each one, advanced training is required to be recognized 

as a professional in that feld. As a draftsmen, a 12T prepares construction prints that are used for horizontal- and 

vertical-construction projects. A 12T must be profcient at 

computer-aided drafting and have a strong working knowledge of the other MOSs within the Engineer Regiment. Geotechnical engineering involves determining the suitability of 

materials used for construction projects by performing feld 

and laboratory tests that can range from soil tests to determine the adequacy for placing a road, runway, or building 

foundation to tests of the concrete that might be used to construct a building foundation.

Any of these highly technical skills alone is important 

to the success of military engineering operations, but a 

single Service member who has the skills of all three is an 

indispensable member of any project team. A 12T learns to 

seamlessly integrate these skills at the Technical Engineer 

Course at the U.S. Army Engineer School. The program is 

relatively new compared to the 240-year Army history; the 

course did not exist 20 years ago. The specialty previously 

consisted of four different MOSs—one each for drafting and 

An AIT platoon 

sergeant checks 

out an unmanned 

aerial vehicle, a 

piece of new surveying equipment.

“Surveyors share a lineage with 

former presidents and the men who 

paved the way for the expansion of 

our young Nation.”
40 Engineer January–April 2016

materials testing and two separate ones for surveying. The 

courses lasted an average of 16 weeks each, but advances in 

technology and automation reduced the time and manpower 

required to perform tasks that would have otherwise been 

tedious and time-consuming. 

The advances also allowed the courses to be shortened 

and, eventually, combined. This occurred with the 1994 

formation of the Inter-Service Training Review Organization, which brought members of the Army, Marines, Navy, 

and Air Force together to train as one team under one roof. 

Today, the 12T course is 17 weeks long, with an average 

annual course load of 430 inter-Service students, plus allied 

offcers and enlisted Service members. The training time 

is shared among four phases, which represent each of the 

originally separate MOSs. 

Combining four highly technical specialties comes with 

its challenges. It is diffcult to keep pace with new technology. Before a new piece of equipment touches a student’s 

hands, it must be felded and added to the program of 

instruction, which takes a minimum of 3 years. By the time 

the new equipment is fully integrated into the course, it may 

already be obsolete. The cost of new equipment and software 

is also a matter of concern. It costs about $5,000 to install a 

licensed copy of the software on each of 60 computers used 

for teaching the drafting phase for two concurrent classes. 

A new set of surveying equipment costs about $50,000, with 

three concurrent survey classes requiring 54 sets of equipment. Keeping up with new products that have a 1- or 2-year 

life cycle would incur astronomical costs, but Army engineer 

missions don’t require that every update be adopted.

T

he origin of geospatial engineers in the military dates 

back to the American Revolution. George Washington, who acquired his survey experience in the area 

of Fort Belvoir, Virginia, appointed Robert Erskine as the 

frst geographer and surveyor for the Continental Army in 

1777. Tom Hutchins, later retained as “Geographer of the 

United States,” laid out the frst ranges of public land in 

the American West. Lewis and Clark and Zebulon Pike 

also made noteworthy contributions during this period. The 

Army commissioned its frst geospatial engineers during 

the War of 1812; by 1816, engineers had helped explore the 

West and had surveyed coastal fortifcation sites.

Geospatial engineers continue to learn the latest techniques to accomplish current missions, including the extraction of geospatial data from remotely sensed imagery, feld 

reconnaissance, digital data, existing topographic products, 

and other collateral data sources. Graduating geospatial 

engineers can digitize and scan cultural, topographic, and 

hydrographic features in digital formats. They also develop 

a concept about how to extract these features using other 

sources. Entry level personnel can perform detailed analyses of this topographic information by querying, viewing, 

processing, and analyzing data. They can compile this information into printable maps and other products that can be 

shared digitally or printed as hardcopy.

Geospatial engineers attend an 18-week course composed 

of six blocks of instruction. The trainees learn about different types of remotely sensed imagery and digitized graphics, 

A civilian instructor briefs Soldiers in the interior electrician course.
January–April 2016 Engineer 41

and they learn to produce geospatial products with the latest 

software. They are introduced to factor overlays of transportation, hydrology, slope, vegetation, and obstacles; and they 

observe how they affect military operations on the modern 

battlefeld. A capstone exercise requires that the students 

use all of the skills they learned throughout the course to 

create geospatial products to support military briefngs and 

strategic, operational, and tactical products.

C

ompany B platoon sergeants, instructors, and cadre 

help Soldiers entering AIT and preparing to leave for 

duty in U.S. Army Forces Command, Army National 

Guard, and U.S. Army Reserve units. Platoon sergeants are 

not simply replacements for basic training drill sergeants. 

Drill sergeants help recruits develop basic Soldier skills, 

while AIT platoon sergeants cultivate the complete Soldier 

in conjunction with MOS-specifc training that prepares the 

Soldier to enter the operational Army. Soldiers learn to communicate their problems with cadre, which prepares them 

to do the same in the future with their own subordinates. In 

AIT, platoon sergeants are frst-line supervisors on whom 

the Soldiers depend for answers and guidance. They represent the type of leader that Soldiers should desire to be in 

their future Army careers.

The Way Ahead

C

ompany B is working with offcials at the Engineer 

School and Ozarks Technical Community College, 

Springfeld, Missouri, to help engineer Soldiers 

earn certifcates and/or associate’s degrees in their specifc 

felds. The college grants credit for all professional military 

education, which reduces the number of additional courses 

required to earn a certifcate and/or associate’s degree. 

Soldiers have the opportunity to obtain credentials that are 

recognized by civilian employers and that will entitle them 

to pay that is commensurate with their military experience and education. Another Company B initiative involves 

working with the Engineer School and the National Society 

of Professional Surveyors to grant MOS 12T graduates a 

civilian credential that is universally accepted in corporate 

America. Company B, 169th Engineer Battalion, is a diverse 

and unique company that stands as the guardian and steward of the engineer profession within the U.S. Army. 

Captain B, 169th Engineer Battalion. He holds a bachelor’s degree in electrical and 

engineering Montana Tech of the University 

-

Technical University, 

Washington, D.C.

First Lieutenant is the executive offcer of 

B. He holds a bachelor’s degree 

Boston University.

Staff Sergeant Jared S. Wenzel is an instructor-writer for 

the technical engineer course. He is a graduate of the Technical Engineer Senior Leader Course and is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in engineering Arizona State 

University.

An AIT frst sergeant shows 12T students troubleshooting techniques.
42 Engineer January–April 2016

S

oldiers from the 54th Brigade Engineer Battalion 

were among the U.S. Army’s 173d Airborne Brigade 

paratroopers who joined North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and partners from Spain, Denmark, 

Italy, and the United Kingdom for the month-long Exercise 

Trident Juncture from 19 October through 9 November 2015. 

Trident Juncture, which was the largest combined exercise 

of its kind, incorporated more than 33 countries and 36,000 

participants, showcasing the interoperability and capabilities of NATO partners on a grand scale.

The Company B Soldiers and paratroopers from 

Troop B, 1st Squadron, 91st Cavalry Regiment, joined troops 

from the Spanish 47th Light Infantry Regiment, the British 

4th Armoured Brigade, the Italian 4th Mechanized Infantry 

Brigade, and multiple armored units from Denmark to provide opposition forces to engage the light infantry companies 

as they maneuvered through the Chinchilla National Training Center in southeastern Spain. Throughout the training 

exercise, the American opposition force exercised engineering and small-unit tactics against the larger assaulting 

force, which was composed of three armored and mechanized battle groups from the British, Danish, and Italian 

armies. Due to their smaller numbers, the opposition forces 

made special use of the expertise they brought to the fght 

from their specifc branches and incorporated enemy tactics, 

techniques, and procedures that many of them had experienced while fghting in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Engineers created improvised explosive devices at choke 

points in the terrain to initiate ambushes and constructed 

large earthen obstacles with concertina wire to block 

the enemy advance across open ground. The rocky soil in 

southern Spain enabled the engineers to use the hydraulic picket pounder on their high mobility engineer excavator to emplace more than 1,000 meters of triple-standard 

Opposition Fo

 for E rid

Sky Soldiers Provide

A U.S. Soldier and his Spanish counterpart engage 

advancing forces from the British 4th Light Dragoons during a training exercise.

By First Lieutenant John T. Perry
January–April 2016 Engineer 43

concertina wire in just 4 hours after they had completed 

work on a 2-kilometer engagement area consisting of berms, 

antitank ditches, and improvised craters. 

U.S. scouts from Troop B provided reconnaissance and 

harassment to simulated casualties on the enemy and 

to create general confusion in their ranks. Spanish infantry 

troops performed textbook maneuvers throughout the training area, also a great number of casualties on the 

larger assaulting force.

The training culminated in a 5-day exercise that demonstrated the tactics each battle group had learned during 

the previous weeks. Working with NATO allies provided 

the American paratroopers with a new understanding of 

“The interactive professional engineer forum is designed to promote and encourage life-long learning at the personal, institutional, and operational levels. Much more than a reading list, it contains articles, YouTube video links, 

movie suggestions and reviews, reports and studies, recommended books and doctrine.”

Become a member and begin collaborating with other members of the Engineer Regiment in discussing and rating 

current resources, and recommending other resources. The ERRM is open to all military ranks and civilian personnel.

combined arms maneuver. The 173d Airborne Brigade is the 

U.S. Army Contingency Response Force in Europe, and it is 

capable of deploying ready forces to conduct the full range 

of military operations across the areas of operations of U.S. 

European Command, U.S. Africa Command, and U.S. Central Command within 18 hours.

First Lieutenant Perry is the executive offcer of B, 

54th Brigade Engineer Battalion, 173d Infantry Brigade -

bat (Airborne) at Vicenza, Italy. He is a graduate of the 

82d Airborne Division Advanced Airborne School, the U.S. 

Air Assault School, the U.S. Airborne School, the Sapper 

Leader Course, and the Engineer Basic Offcer Leader Course. 

He holds a bachelor’s degree of science in biology 

University in North Carolina. 

Engineer Regiment Resource Menu

“The 21st Century version of the Commandant’s Reading List”

<https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/usaes-commandant-resource-menu>
44 Engineer January –April 2016

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update pdate

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate 

Concepts, Organizations, and Doctrine Development Division

A signifcant update to engineer doctrine, Army Techniques 

Publication (ATP) 3-34.20, Countering Explosive Hazards

(formerly known as Field Manual 3-34.210, Explosive 

Hazard Operations), was published in January 2016. The 

feld manual was identifed as having signifcant issues 

in effectively describing how combat engineers counter 

explosive hazards while supporting mobility. Therefore, a 

team of subject matter experts within the Engineer Regiment, 

and representatives from across the Army, the U.S. Marine 

Corps, and the explosive ordnance disposal communities 

developed a framework that provides engineer leaders with 

a more clearly articulated way of describing our craft. ATP 

3-34.20 addresses the previous concerns with doctrine by 

moving toward a narrative that is focused on engineers and 

their efforts across the range of military operations. This new 

publication also emphasizes the importance of the Engineer 

Regiment and force using common, accurate language; 

providing a terminology hierarchy; and emphasizing the 

hierarchy throughout the framework. This publication will 

ultimately impact internal engineer publications and some of 

those being produced by other branches and Services.

To emphasize some of the key changes in the content, this 

article provides a brief overview of the publication. While this 

quickly highlights some of the noteworthy updates, leaders 

should emphasize the importance of reading the doctrine in 

its entirety as part of professional development for Soldiers.

In establishing the framework, four conditions that cover 

every situation in which engineers must counter the categories 

of explosive hazards are identifed (see Figure 1). These four 

conditions are aligned with major engineer tasks (organized 

by engineer discipline) that the Army requires engineers 

New Countering Explosive Hazards Doctrine Published

Figure 1. Explosive-obstacle conditions Figure 1 Explosive obstacle conditions

ABIED - airborne improvised explosive device

AO - area of operaions

CEA - captured enemy ammunition

IEP - improvised explosive device

ISO - in support of

PBIED - person-borne improvised explosive device

UXO - unexploded ordnance

VBIED - vehicle-borne improvised explosive device

WBIED - water-borne improvised explosive device
January–April 2016 Engineer 45

to conduct to counter explosive hazards. This framework 

allows engineers to apply their unique capabilities in a logical 

manner without being overwhelmed by the complexities of 

the various explosive materials, initiating systems, triggering 

mechanisms, and other factors. Engineers must understand 

these conditions and know how to apply the right effort to 

counter the effects of each condition.

Condition No. 1 is the major focus, and it requires the 

majority of the combat engineer efforts to counter explosive 

hazards. It applies throughout the phases in offensive, 

defensive, and stability operations.

Condition No. 2 varies, depending on its application 

in offensive and defensive operations versus stability 

operations. During stability operations, barriers or obstacles 

may be emplaced to deny the enemy the ability to move 

mines or explosive booby traps/improvised explosive 

devices in the area of operations. For example, kilometers 

of T walls were placed to compartmentalize the Green Zone 

in Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom. In offensive 

and defensive operations, combat engineers work within the 

targeting process to ensure that mine-laying vehicles and 

other enemy assets are targeted to prevent the placement of 

explosive obstacles.

Condition No. 3 involves combat engineers countering 

the employment of improvised explosive devices by 

executing survivability operations and general engineering to 

build protective positions and harden structures. 

Condition No. 4 differs because the explosives are under 

the control of, and do not normally pose an immediate danger 

to, friendly forces. In this condition, engineers typically provide 

general engineering support such as the construction of 

berms and fencing. In some cases, engineers may be tasked 

to assist explosive ordnance disposal personnel in destroying 

captured enemy ammunition or bulk explosives.

Another of the key features in the new ATP is a fgure that 

shows the complementary capabilities available to counter 

explosive obstacles. This fgure is a snapshot of the primary 

tasks, normal conditions, and main limitations of warfghters, 

combat engineers, and explosive ordnance disposal 

personnel in countering explosive obstacles during mobility. 

Each of the noted forces has varying capabilities to react to 

explosive obstacles, beginning with the basic set of skills 

maintained by the warfghter. Combat engineers and explosive 

ordnance disposal forces have additional capabilities to 

respond to explosive obstacles. An understanding of the 

complementary nature of these capabilities is essential for 

leaders to properly prepare and execute operations involving 

explosive obstacles. The fgure emphasizes the benefts of 

synchronizing all three of these forces to ensure the most 

effective countering of explosive obstacles. In addition to this 

fgure, the publication provides a narrative to address details 

of the capabilities for each force in offensive, defensive, and 

stability operations. 

Figure 2 summarizes the engineer terminology for 

countering obstacles in support of maneuver and movement. 

Figure 2. Engineer-obstacle terminology Fi 2 E i b t l t i l
Please contact us if you have any questions or recommendations concerning doctrine.

Lieutenant Colonel Sally C. Hannan, Telephone: (573) 563-2717; e-mail: <sally.c.hannan.mil@mail.mil>. 

Mr. Douglas K. Merrill, Telephone: (573) 563-0003; e-mail: <douglas.k.merrill.civ@mail.mil>. 

Engineer Doctrine Team, e-mail: <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.cdidcodddengdoc@mail.mil>.

46 Engineer January–April 2016

“Doctrine is indispensable to an army. Doctrine provides a military organization with 

a common philosophy, a common language, a common purpose, and a unity of effort.”

The intent of this graphic is to ensure that engineers 

understand the doctrinal terminology and what is meant 

by terms such as reduce or clear. Breaching remains the 

overarching term for the combined arms action, but the 

engineer part of that operation is to reduce or clear. For 

instance, reducing an obstacle refers to creating a proofed 

and marked lane through, over, or around that obstacle. It is 

not merely the “create the lane” portion of the task. It includes 

six obstacle reduction tasks and identifes the typical subtasks 

for reducing an obstacle—bypass, destroy, remove, or span. 

Clearing is the elimination of an obstacle, and it is 

usually not conducted under fre. In contrast to the task of 

reducing, clearing is a deliberate, combined arms operation 

that is often much more time-intensive to execute. It results 

in the complete elimination of the designated obstacle and 

is typically conducted by engineer units due to their unique 

equipment, organization, and training. 

The delineation of supporting maneuver and movement 

has been extremely effective in allowing engineers to 

better understand the terminology, in providing a better 

understanding of the capabilities available to the maneuver 

commander, and in explaining what the maneuver commander 

can expect to see as a result of reducing or clearing. 

ATP 3-34.20 clearly explains how combat engineers 

counter explosive hazards and also refocuses the Engineer 

Regiment. The doctrinal terminology and introduced 

framework allow a clear understanding of how engineers 

should think about explosive hazards.

ATP 3-34.22, Engineer Operations—Brigade Combat Team and Below 36th Engineer Brigade

ATP 3-34.45, Power Generation and Distribution 249th Engineer Battalion

ATP 3-34.80, Geospatial Engineering Training and Doctrine Command 

Capacity Manager–Geospatial, Maneuver 

Support Center of Excellence

We continue to ask for your involvement in the Doctrine Sponsorship Program. The program is a great way to 

ensure that we are receiving current feedback from the feld. The publications listed below will be within the revision 

cycle this year. Sponsors of the publications are also noted. Those who are interested in providing support to the 

doctrine development and revision process for these or any other publications should not hesitate to contact us.

ATP 3-37.10, Base Camps 555th Engineer Brigade

ATP 3-37.34, Survivability Operations 555th Engineer Brigade

ATP 3-90.8, Combined Arms Countermobility Operations 20th Engineer Brigade

ATP 3-90.37, Countering Improvised Explosive Devices 20th Engineer Brigade
January–April 2016 Engineer 47

I

n December 2014, the 3d Brigade Combat Team (BCT), 

82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, 

was ordered to Iraq for a security force (SECFOR) and 

security force assistance advisor team (SFAAT) mission to 

support Operation Inherent Resolve beginning in late January 2015. This article outlines the experiences of the 307th 

Brigade Engineer Battalion during its short train-up and 

its deployment as Task Force Cobalt. The lessons learned 

should be useful for future SFAAT rotations in Iraq and for 

the entire U.S. Army engineer community.

The Mission

T

he Task Force Cobalt mission was twofold:

■ Provide enabler packages across the protection, 

 mission command, sustainment, and intelligence 

	 	 warfghting	 functions	 to	 support	 BCT	 maneuver

 battalions and command posts.

■ Advise and assist the Baghdad operations com- 

 mand (BOC), a three-star Iraqi army headquarters 

 that is responsible for the defense of the capital. 

The rest of the BCT was responsible for establishing 

security or building company size partnership capacity 

(BPC) training units at nine operating locations in Iraq 

and	 SFAATs	 or	 equivalents	 from	 the	 other	 fve	 deployed	

battalions for partnership with Iraqi army commands. Several of the resultant enabler packages—the shadow platoon, the tactical command node platoons, a forward logistics element, and the brigade intelligence synchronization 

enterprise—generally	 	 modifed	 table	 of	 organization and equipment and doctrinal employment. Combat 

engineering support to the SECFOR and BPC companies 

depended on mission requirements, and these requirements 

would change over time. 

The location and condition of the sites where the BCT 

would	 operate	 in	 Iraq	 were	 unclear	 at	 frst,	 so occupying 

units needed to be prepared to expand their sites. This placed 

a premium on technical skills in the combat engineering 

support packages for task force engineers (TFEs) and for 

the composite sapper squads assigned to the SECFOR and 

BPC companies. Some of the technical skills were already 

present in personnel with previous allied trades experience; 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics degrees; 

and engineer professional credentials. These Soldiers were 

accordingly assigned against requirements.

However, prior experience only got the battalion so 

far and mission success depended on technical skills. 

Therefore, the battalion leveraged the engineer entities 

from various special operations forces on Fort Bragg. 

The emphasis was on units that specialize in expeditionary base construction and in vertical engineering, with 

a focus on welding, carpentry, electrical power, heating 

and air conditioning, and contracting. This focus complemented the composite sapper squads in particular. The 

squads included two paratroopers who were horizontalconstruction engineers. The work with the special operations forces engineers also provided insight into their 

materiel solutions for specialized tool sets to support bare 

base builds and promoted interoperability between special 

operations and conventional forces. In addition, the TFEs 

and composite sapper squad members were licensed on the 

interim High-Mobility Engineer Excavator and skid steer 

loader that were deployed to each site.

The second part of the Task Force Cobalt mission— 

advising and assisting the BOC—required a trained 

SFAAT with expertise across the warfighting and 

staff functions and dedicated operations, plans, intelligence,	 fres,	 logistics,	 training,	 and	 command	 group 

advisors. Critical thinking skills were a screening criteria	 for	 SFAAT	 membership.	 Beyond	 the	 ill-defned	

nature of the advise and assist mission, the need 

for solid critical thinkers came from force manning 

constraints and distributed mission command requirements. With advising and performing their “day jobs” as 

section noncommissioned offcers	in	charge,	driver/railway	

transportation	 offcers,	 platoon	 leaders,	 or	 even	 company	

commanders, SFAAT members wore a minimum of two 

hats. The team was also augmented by the BCT staff and 

sister battalions for areas of expertise not contained within 

By Lieutenant Colonel Patrick J. Sullivan
48 Engineer January–April 2016

the	 team.	This	 included	 two	 infantry	captains	and	a	fre	

support	coordination	cell	for	maneuver	and	fres	expertise.

Many SFAAT members had never deployed to Iraq, so 

the team undertook an intensive reading program to bridge 

the knowledge gap, using the book Iraq After 1 and 

daily regional news Web sites as primary sources. A leader 

professional development program was developed to amplify 

the team’s critical-thinking skills. This included readings 

and exercises from the School of Advanced Military Studies 

and training in critical thinking and negotiation techniques. 

These battalion level initiatives nested within the BCT and 

division level training programs, which included a forum 

with the Iraq study group from the National Defense University, seminars with the Combating Terrorism Center and 

West Point Negotiation Project from the U.S. Military Academy, an externally-resourced SFAAT academy, and a home 

station certifying training event that was supported by the 

Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana. 

A

s the mission evolved, some of the planning assumptions that characterized the enabler packages and 

.SFAAT composition were invalidated. This required 

the realignment of talent and rethinking of tasks, which 

revealed	the	value	of	the	 	that	was	built	 into	the	

deployed force structure and the adaptability of our leaders. The units supported by the TFEs and the composite 

sapper squads relied heavily on the technical skills that 

were emphasized in selection and training. While sappers 

pulled their share of guard duty in their secondary role of 

fghting	 as	 infantry,	 the	 SECFOR	 mission	 found	 them	

designing and building entry control points, performing base 

operating support-integrator functions, conducting vulnerability assessments, and overseeing a multitude of local 

national contracts. 

The BPC mission was particularly prominent, as the 

coalition-enabled collective training model for Iraqi army 

units culminated with a combined arms breach. TFEs 

played	 a	 signifcant	 role	 in	 designing,	 building,	 and	maintaining the obstacle belts for these lanes, and they helped 

develop programs of instruction for many of the engineerspecifc	 supporting	 tasks.	 Sapper	 squads	 assigned	 to	 BPC	

companies served as primary trainers. TFEs also performed 

an outsized role in leveraging the Iraq train-and-equip fund 

for partnered force development, serving as staff primaries 

for	project	requirements,	scope-of-work	defnition,	contract	

letting, and oversight. The TFE assigned to the SFAAT in 

Irbil,	a	sergeant	frst	class	combat	 engineer	with	a	project	

management professional (PMP) credential, was singlehandedly responsible for developing the range complex 

that became the Kurdistan Training Coordination Center 

and building a battalion size command post. Lastly, several 

TFEs became high-level advisors when their maneuver battalions served as SFAATs in support of the Ramadi counterattack, which began in late summer 2015.

The	 SFAAT’s	 efforts	 eventually	 	 what	 could	

be characterized as the (see Figure 1), and the 

emphasis on critical-thinking skills ensured that the battalion had the right people to adapt to any permutation in 

our	advising	approach.	As	the	fgure	shows,	there	are	three	

gears, connected in sequence, with one bigger than the other 

two. Each gear corresponds to a major output of the advising approach, and the size of the gears conveys the relative 

importance of the output to the coalition campaign.

The biggest gear in the sequence—and the one that 

turned the other two and provided the most important 

return to the coalition—was the pulse of the BOC. The driver 

for this gear was the command advising that the battalion 

command group provided to the BOC leaders. The BOC is a 

Figure 1. Gear model advising approach in Operation Inherent Resolve

■ Pulse of the command

■ Political-military context

■ Sphere of infuence

■ Stakeholder analysis

■ Contingency operations development

■ Collection planning

■ Intelligence fusion

■ Network development

■ Common operating picture

■ Digital battle tracking

■ Intelligence, surveillance, and 

 reconnaissance tactical control

■ Dynamic strikes

■ Deliberate targeting

■ Training

■ Administration

■ Logistics

■ Maintenance

■ Counter improvised explosive device 

 operations

■ Tribal development

■ Mission command systems

Command 

Advising

Operational 

Advising

Functional 

Advising
unique	and	hugely	 	organization	within	the	Iraqi	

security	apparatus,	with	control	of	a	signifcant	percentage	

of the Iraqi army and Iraqi federal police, broad authority 

to generate and employ those forces, and access to the highest levels of Iraqi military and political decisionmaking. The 

battalion relationship with the BOC commander, his principals,	and	his	 	gave	the	team	a	nearly	proprietary	

insight that helped to ensure that the visualization and estimates of the coalition leaders were properly informed.

Because the Iraqi army is commander-centric, the pulse 

of	 the	 command	 defned	 the	 operational	 priorities	 of	 the	

BOC, which in turn dictated the balance of the battalion 

advising efforts. This explains the rest of the gear model. 

The BOC forces are fully deployed against the Islamic State 

in Iraq and the Levant and	criminal	elements,	fghting	daily	

during the 8 months the team was partnered with them. The 

BOC commander’s foremost priority—the	frst	gear	that	the	

pulse of the command turned—was the layered defense of 

Baghdad. My team dedicated its operational advising effort 

in kind.

This involved a full, daily integration of our plans, 

operations,	fres,	and	intelligence	advisors	with	BOC	counterparts. To access and effectively employ coalition intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and air strikes, 

the team advisors and their counterparts developed contingency operations and associated collection and targeting plans, then tracked the battle using digital battle 

command systems. This arrangement allowed the team 

to provide multiple intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance feeds and a common operating picture to the 

BOC leaders, which aided their mission command and 

operational environment clearance procedures. It also created a nearly real-time link between the Iraqi commander 

and the coalition target engagement authority, thereby 

increasing the responsiveness and accuracy of air strikes. 

Moreover, the information archived within the common 

operating picture enabled network development and deliberate targeting efforts that were independent of the often 

unreliable and hidebound Iraqi human intelligence and 

that more directly supported the coalition priorities. Our 

operational advising efforts best illustrate the adaptability 

at all levels and repurposing of talent that this particular 

mission demanded.

Although we were command and operational advisors 

frst,	functional advising (the last gear in the model), which 

assumed ever greater importance as the mission matured, 

was	directly	linked	to	operational	advising.	Specifcally,	the	

assessment of BOC operations broadcast various demand 

signals that drove the efforts of our functional advisors. 

For example, a high casualty rate among BOC explosive 

ordnance disposal operators prompted a weekly counter 

improvised explosive device forum to discuss best practices 

and available coalition-provided training and equipping 

solutions. Poor operational readiness rates of BOC critical 

equipment items necessitated special attention to maintenance management within BOC subordinate commands and 

at national level depots. The sheer size of the BOC force 

structure made it a necessary customer to sustain the unit 

training pipeline at the BPC sites, and this rotational plan 

had to be synchronized with the coalition plan for other Iraqi 

army	 units.	 The	 BOC	 commander’s	 plan	 for	 local	 fghters	

to pacify and resettle Sunni-dominated areas required the 

funding and training of a tribal resistance force. 

There are countless other examples of how operations drove functional advising, but the key distinction is 

that, while operational advising was mostly an “in-house” 

solution, every functional advising effort had to be operationalized through some external proponent, either in the 

Combined/Joint	 Force	 Land	 Component	 Command,	 the	

Combined	Joint	Special	Operations	Task	Force,	or	the	Offce	

of Security Cooperation–Iraq. Thus, functional advising connected the team back to the collective efforts of the coalition and ensured that command and operational advising 

remained nested despite the exclusive mission and high 

degree of independence of the BOC.

Takeaways

F

ollowing are some of the lessons learned during 

the SFAAT mission:

■ Short notice can be a good thing since it forces leaders 

 to prudently manage their time and training resources 

 for what is truly essential. 

■ Leaders must have a clear understanding of where they 

	 ft	within	the	bigger	picture.	I	needed	to	be	a	 force	pro-

	 vider	 to	 achieve	 the	 frst	 part	 of	 my	 mission	 for	 this

 deployment. Within this paradigm, I determined that 

 technical skills would be our greatest potential deliver- 

 able to the BCT and that identifying, positioning, and 

	 augmenting	these	skills	had	frst	priority	in	our	prepara-

 tion for the mission. 

■ It is necessary to have a clear identity as an SFAAT. Not 

 knowing the frame of reference of our counterparts or 

 how we would nest within the coalition campaign, we had 

 to be prepared to outthink any problem. This is where the 

 focus on critical thinking skills originated. Once we 

 became fully integrated into the mission and gained con- 

 text for our counterparts, critical thinking helped us 

 recognize when this context had changed (or was about to 

 change) and communicate that change up the advisory 

	 chain	 in	 a	 way	 that	 nced	 the	 dynamic	 coalition	

 campaign.

■ Critical thinking begat adaptability, which made us for- 

 midable advisors. While adaptability is inherent to many 

 types of units, airborne engineer formations have it in 

 abundance, as a byproduct of what we do as engineers 

 and of how airborne units are expected	to	fght,	particu-

 larly in the joint forcible-entry setting. 

Endnote:

1Joel Rayburn, , Hoover Institution Press, 

Stanford, California, 1 July 2014.

Lieutenant 

Brigade Engineer Battalion.

January–April 2016 Engineer 49
50 Engineer January–April 2016

T

here is a misconception that 

it is impossible to simultaneously serve as an engineer staff officer and a platoon 

leader. At the start of a 2015 rotation at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California, I was 

told by an observer-controller that 

my commander put me in a “horrible position” by expecting me to 

be a task force engineer and a platoon leader. My experience as a 

mechanized sapper platoon leader 

with the 82d Engineer Battalion, 

2d Armored Brigade Combat Team, 

1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, 

Kansas, proved that observercontroller wrong.

Engineer platoon leaders in the 

2d Armored Brigade Combat Team 

are assigned to support specifc task 

forces with anything involving engineer operations, whether 

as sappers or infantry Soldiers. Platoon leaders are expected 

to be experts in all types of engineering to ensure the success 

of the task force through mobility, countermobility, and survivability. In addition to their tactical knowledge, platoon 

leaders must also possess four key tenets to be successful: 

■ Leadership.

■ Presence.

■ Commitment.

■ Trust.

The frst requirement for platoon leaders to be successful 

is an ability to lead. Effective leadership requires the respect 

of the Soldiers in the platoon. In a 1984 article in Engineer, 

First Lieutenant Louis J. Leto writes, “A platoon leader 

must learn the signifcance of this respect. It is his men who 

determine his success. It is his men who handle the heavy 

equipment, place the minefelds, and dig the tank ditches. 

If they succeed, the platoon leader succeeds. If they fail, the 

platoon leader fails. Soldiers will not risk their lives or strive 

for perfection for a leader they don’t respect.”1

Success starts with the ability of the platoon sergeant to 

develop squad leaders to execute orders. Once the platoon 

leader plans the engineer portion of an operation with the 

By First Lieutenant Cody D. Ikkala

82d Engineer Battalion leaders conduct the military decisionmaking process at 

the National Training Center.

task force leaders, the Soldiers of the platoon must begin the 

necessary movement. This is where the role of the platoon 

sergeant is so crucial. Right outside the tactical operations 

center, the platoon leader should be able to give orders to 

the platoon sergeant, who takes the orders and ensures that 

they are executed. This allows the platoon leader to continue 

acting as the task force engineer, refning the plan with task 

force leaders. 

Knowing when to step out from under the task force engineer hat and put on the platoon leader hat is a leadership 

challenge. This decision allows the platoon leader to motivate, direct, and his or her Soldiers and perhaps 

become aware of overlooked terrain features or unforeseen 

obstacles. This observation from a different perspective can 

allow the platoon leader to go back and refne the plan with 

task force leaders once the decision is made to switch hats 

once again.

Another part of the leadership tenet is the ability of the 

platoon leader to be frm, confdent, and directive. An operation involves a huge of information, changes in plans, 

and demands on leaders. The platoon leader can 

solve this leadership challenge by being present at the most 

decisive location. For example, the platoon may be moving to 

a new location at the same time the task force leadership is 
January–April 2016 Engineer 51

putting out the timeline for the military decisionmaking process, issuing mission assignments, and developing courses of 

action. The platoon leader must be willing to trust junior 

leaders and the platoon sergeant to conduct the movement 

without direct supervision.

Presence is another tenet necessary for the success 

of a platoon leader in the role of task force engineer. The 

tenet of presence starts early on, when meeting the task 

force commander, command sergeant major, and operations offcer. The confdence established at that meeting 

will determine how much the platoon leader will be trusted 

and how much of his or her expertise will be incorporated 

in the planning process. Getting involved in that process 

means fnding the key tactical operations center personnel who will help the platoon leader fulfll the commander’s 

vision. Operations offcers are a good frst choice because 

they oversee the section that advises the commander on 

how to use the engineer assets available. Once that linkup 

is made, it is important that the platoon leader tie into the 

planning with all task force staff sections. Synchronization 

should be the mantra of engineers involved in any mission. 

Once the engineer plan has been completed and briefed to 

the task force commander, the promised product must be 

delivered. Obstacles, survivability positions, route reconnaissance packages, and any other requirements must be 

executed to standard and synchronized with the task force 

scheme of maneuver. 

Commitment is another crucial tenet of simultaneously 

acting as a task force engineer and a platoon leader because 

the dual task requires expertise in mobility, countermobility, and survivability. As an engineer offcer, the platoon 

leader must be aware of the capabilities of the personnel in the platoon and in other inorganic engineer units 

attached to the company headquarters. Before our rotation 

at the National Training Center, I consulted other platoon 

leaders in an attempt to fully understand the company’s 

horizontal and breaching assets and I compiled a smart book 

that included information about each piece of equipment 

available. When task organizations were issued and the task 

force was assigned additional assets, the book enabled us 

to provide the maneuver commander with accurate, timely 

estimates of what could be accomplished with the assets so 

that decisions could be made earlier in the military decisionmaking process.

One of the most signifcant lessons learned at the National 

Training Center rotation was to expect the unexpected. Late 

in the planning cycle, we received a fragmentary order from 

the brigade attaching two bulldozer blade teams that would 

be responsible for constructing an antitank ditch. I made the 

mistake of thinking that the inorganic teams were as effcient as our organic teams, but they didn’t complete the job 

as expected. This left a gap in our defenses that could easily 

have been exploited. It is essential for a task force engineer 

to understand the capabilities of the equipment assigned to 

the task force, even if the equipment is not organic to his or 

her platoon.

The fnal, and perhaps most important, tenet needed to 

perform both as a task force engineer and a platoon leader 

is trust, which is a product of the other tenets of leadership, 

presence, and commitment. The role of a task force engineer 

who falters in any of these qualities will likely be minimized 

during the planning process, and he or she will be unable to 

contribute to the team effort. There is much to be said about 

trust in many different scenarios; it is what our profession is 

all about. When you have earned a person’s trust, you have 

also earned his or her respect.

Endnote:

1Louis J. Leto, “Success Through Respect,” Engineer, Volume 

14, Number 1, Spring 1984, pp. 36–37.

First Lieutenant Ikkala is the executive offcer of B, 

82d Engineer Battalion. He holds a bachelor’s degree in honors 

geography the U.S. Military 

Point, New York.

An element of the 2d Armored Brigade Combat Team lines up to assault its objective.
Self-development is a major pillar in the growth of Army leaders. One tool to aid in this is the “Engineer Commandant’s Reading List” at <http://www.wood.army.mil/usaes/library/documents/ENGR_CMDT_READING_LIST_2012.pdf>. 

It includes a variety of books on history, politics, and culture that are appropriate for Soldiers and civilians in the Engineer 

Regiment. The list is not all-inclusive and will be updated over time.

Book reviews are a feature in each issue of Engineer. Authors of book reviews summarize the contents of books of interest 

and point out the key lessons to be learned from them. Readers who wish to submit book reviews may forward them to <usarmy 

.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.engineer@mail.mil>. 

On China, by Dr. Henry Kissinger, Penguin Books, 

17 May 2011, ISBN 9781594202711

Recent military developments in the Pacifc should motivate Department of Defense personnel to learn about and 

understand China, the giant of the region. From 

with smaller neighbors over disputed territories and islands 

to its military modernization and economic development, 

China exerts a major throughout the world today. 

However, China’s current position as a world leader came 

at great cost and sacrifce, as the result of tenacity and perseverance. Anyone interested in China’s development, especially in modern times, will want to read this book of wisdom and insight presented by the diplomat and Nobel Peace 

Prize winner, Dr. Henry Kissinger. In this engrossing study, 

Kissinger leads the reader to an understanding of modern 

China from its historical and cultural roots. What emerges 

is a lucid, intriguing study that reads in several dimensions. 

The book ranges from a historical study of facts and events; 

to a personal glimpse into the personalities and motivations 

of 20th century Chinese, Soviet, and American leaders and 

diplomats; to interpretation and hopes for future relations 

between the United States and China.

The opening chapters provide detailed descriptions and 

interpretations of historical events to help understand modern China in perspective. The author confesses that presenting Chinese history would require oversimplifcation, so he 

confnes the historical sketch to the minimum necessary for 

understanding modern Chinese foreign policy. He explains 

the nation’s cultural and governmental roots in Confucianism and explains the strategic game of Go, “encircling game,” 

contrasting it with the Western game of chess. Whereas Go

emphasizes subtlety and advantage, chess is about domination and total victory. Kissinger on Sun Tzu’s The Art 

of War1 and shows how the military philosopher and strategist implemented elements of Go in his book. Interestingly, 

China long cultivated its domestic politics and statecraft 

while largely avoiding the development of a foreign policy. 

Not until China was humiliated by European powers in the 

19th century did it have to defne and form a foreign policy. 

In developing a foreign policy, Chinese leaders hearkened 

to the skills and strategy of Go, using indirect attacks and 

the patient accumulation of advantage to avoid encirclement 

and domination, thus maintaining strategic equilibrium. 

When facing groups of opponents that were not playing by 

China’s rules, its leaders found weaknesses in the opponents 

and played one against the other. Dr. Kissinger traces this 

strategy through several key historical events, such as conceding rights to Russia in Manchuria, which directly conwith Imperial Japanese ambitions and culminated in 

the 1904–1905 Russo-Japanese War. In more modern times, 

similar strategies were employed when dealing with the two 

competing nuclear superpowers of the Cold War—the United 

States and the Soviet Union. The approach is still relevant 

in China’s current political and military aspirations.

In presenting events after the Chinese Communists came 

to power in 1949, Dr. Kissinger traces the political and military strategy of the Soviet Union and the United States and 

their relationships to China. He focuses on explaining the 

key events (the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and successive crises over the island of Taiwan) that involved the three 

52 Engineer January–April 2016
powers. Dr. Kissinger presents the geopolitical strategies 

and games of the three powers with keen insight and poignancy, tinged with wit and frankness. He also shows how 

the Chinese, without nuclear weapons, maintained military 

equity with the two nuclear powers. Of particular interest to 

the American student of military history are the decisions 

that led China to intervene in the Korean War. That intervention was the result of China’s perception that the United 

Nations, led by the United States, wanted to establish bases 

along China’s borders, leaving China militarily vulnerable. He does not provide as much detail regarding China’s 

involvement in the war in Vietnam, except to explain it in 

terms of a foreign power once again setting up strategic 

bases on China’s periphery and thus threatening stability 

in the region. 

The author does present detailed information about the 

third Vietnam War. China’s 1979 invasion of Vietnam was 

meant to prevent a regional rival from threatening China’s 

central role in Asia. It had the added beneft of leaving the 

Soviet Union, which had provided immense sums of money 

and military equipment to Vietnam, defunct as a power in 

Asia. The war resulted in the enormous loss of Chinese life, 

in numbers that Western nations would fnd untenable. 

Though some historians and analysts believe that the third 

Vietnam War was a failure, Dr. Kissinger writes that it 

brought about two changes in history. It heralded the decline 

of the Soviet Union as a world power, and it forced a weakened Vietnam to dedicate a large troop presence (with all its 

expenses) to duty on the Chinese border. This left Vietnam 

with few resources to dedicate to its other Indochinese aspirations, thus preventing China from being threatened on its 

frontiers by a foreign power. 

Citing personal transcripts from meetings with China’s 

leaders, Dr. Kissinger presents a fascinating glimpse into 

the lives of prominent Chinese leaders, especially Chairman 

Mao Zedong, Zhou En Lai, and Deng Xiao Ping. He portrays 

Mao Zedong as wanting to force history with continual revolutions, which brought disastrous results such as the Great 

Leap Forward (and its accompanying famine) from 1958 to 

1961 and the decade-long Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 

1976. Dr. Kissinger’s assessment of Mao’s right-hand man, 

Zhou En Lai, is admired Zhou’s strong 

skills in statesmanship and diplomacy. As a practical administrator, Zhou reluctantly turned Chairman Mao’s theories 

into reality, causing millions of deaths in the famine. He 

avoided being purged as a leader during Chairman Mao’s 

lifetime, but was marginalized by the time he died. 

Dr. Kissinger reserves his greatest admiration for a man 

who never held the position as head of state or leader of the 

Communist Party. The enigmatic Deng Xiao Ping emerged 

as China’s de facto leader when Zhou En Lai’s successors, 

the Gang of Four, were purged. Deng the Reformer enacted 

the modernization measures frst proposed by Zhou En Lai, 

but Deng the Tyrant later crushed the demonstrators in 

Tiananmen Square when they demanded more freedoms 

and reforms. Kissinger is struck by the resiliency and determination of the Chinese people, who continually emerge 

stronger and more unifed after their roller coaster rides 

through history.

While presenting the leaders of China after 1949, Dr. 

Kissinger also describes the personalities and aspirations 

of Soviet leaders such as Josef Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, 

and Leonid Brezhnev as they developed Soviet policy toward 

Asia and the rest of the world. The awkward meetings 

between Mao and Stalin, and then Mao and Khrushchev, are 

particularly interesting; and they present Mao’s strength 

and determination to push his country to relevancy on the 

world stage.

 The fnal chapters of On China deal with more recent 

trends and developments, focusing on the transition to the 

next generation of leaders, from Jiang Zemin to Hu Jintao, 

the Paramount Leader of China from 2002 until 2012. Dr. 

Kissinger feels that China’s leaders are holding a course 

dedicated to Marxist socialism, remaining true to Maoism, and reconciling the course of their nation with modern 

history and economics. He illustrates how modern events 

in the Pacifc region appear to mimic the events of 19thand 20th-century Europe that led to con ict. However, he 

remains optimistic that the lessons of statesmanship and 

foreign policy will prevail and that peace and mutual cooperation will grow, despite differing world views and political 

systems.

Anyone interested in China’s development and rise from 

a Third World nation to a modern economic and military 

power should read this book to gain a deeper appreciation 

of modern U.S.-China relations. As our military focuses on 

the Pacifc, the book yields insight into our relationships 

with nations of the Pacifc region and our role in the military, commercial, and political events that occur there. The 

military professional will fnd the chapters dedicated to the 

Korean War, the Taiwan crises, and the third Vietnam War 

to be of particular interest from strategic and operational 

perspectives. Because the book can be read on different levels, it sheds light on historical events and facts, presents 

sketches of prominent personalities, and describes the world 

views of some of the most intriguing political fgures of the 

20th century. The book can be dense and slow going at times, 

but well worth the effort. Upon fnishing the work, readers 

will be compelled to go back and revisit sections of particular 

interest and on the development of U.S.-China relations in light of current events.

Endnote:

1Sun-tzu, The Art of War, Filiquarian Publishing, LLC., Lewiston, New York, 7 November 2007, ISBN-13: 978-1599869773.

Staff Sergeant Greer is a training developer in the Directorate 

-

neer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. 

degree language and literature Ohio State 

University.

January–April 2016 Engineer 53