United States Army Engineer School

573-563-8080 / DSN 676-8080

COMMANDANT

MG William H. McCoy

563-6116

<william.h.mccoy@us.army.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

BG (P) John E. Sterling, Jr.

563-6192

<john.e.sterling@us.army.mil>

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR

CSM Clinton J. Pearson

563-8060

<clinton.pearson@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL Lou L. Marich

563-8080

<lou.marich@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–USAR

COL Loretta Deaner

563-8045

<loretta.angela.deaner@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–ARNG

LTC Steven K. Knutzen

563-8046

<steven.knutzen@us.army.mil>

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC Alfred Pantano

563-7116

<alfred.pantano@us.army.mil>

TRADOC SYSTEMS MANAGER – ASSURED MOBILITY

COL Robert W. Nicholson

563-4081

<robert.nicholson@us.army.mil>

TRADOC PROGRAM INTEGRATION OFFICE–TERRAIN DATA

COL Thomas Crabtree

329-1908

<thomas.crabtree@us.army.mil>

COMMANDER, 1st ENGINEER BRIGADE

COL Bjarne Iverson

596-0224, DSN 581-0224

<bjarne.iverson@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT

COL Paul W. Kelly

563-4093

<paul.w.kelly@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION

Dr. Rebecca Johnson

329-1931

<rebecca.johnson1@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF FUTURES CENTER–ENGINEER

COL Richard M. Hornack

563-7955

<richard.hornack@us.army.mil>

HUMANITARIAN DEMINING TRAINING CENTER

Mr. Rodney A. Robideau

596-3870

<rodney.a.robideau@us.army.mil>

COUNTER EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS CENTER

LTC Kent D. Savre

593-8142

<kent.savre@us.army.mil>

Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is prepared quarterly

by the United States Army Engineer School, 320 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 348, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

65473-8929. Periodicals postage is paid at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and additional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to United

States Army Engineer School, ATTN: ATSE-DP (Engineer), 320 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 348, Fort Leonard

Wood, Missouri 65473-8929.

CORRESPONDENCE, letters to the editor, manuscripts, photographs, official unit requests to receive

copies, and unit address changes should be sent to

Engineer at the preceding address. Telephone:

(573) 563-4104, DSN 676-4104; e-mail address:

<engineer@wood.army.mil>; Internet home page:

<http://www.wood.army.mil/engrmag/default.htm>.

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 reflect official U.S.

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

items constitutes neither affirmation 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

$19.00 ($26.60 foreign) per year by contacting the

Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15250-7954.

ADDRESS CHANGES for personal subscriptions

should be sent to the Superintendent of Documents, ATTN: Mail List Branch, Mail Stop SSOM,

Washington, D.C. 20402.

By Order of the Secretary of the Army:

GEORGE W. CASEY, JR.

General, United States Army

Chief of Staff

Official:

JOYCE E. MORROW

Administrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army 0705307
 Engineer 1 January-March 2007

COMMANDANT

Major General

William H. McCoy

FEATURES

040.Revising Engineer Keystone Manual for Full Spectrum Operations

 By Lieutenant Colonel Edward Lefler and Lieutenant Colonel

Barry Supplee (Retired)

07 The Theater Engineer Command – It’s Not Your Legacy ENCOM

Anymore

 By Major General Robert J. Williamson and Lieutenant Colonel

Adam S. Roth

11 TRO: Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities

By Colonel Duke DeLuca, Lieutenant Colonel Fred Kaehler,

and Lieutenant Colonel Robert T. Morgan

14 IEDs: The Obstacle in the Path to Assured Mobility

By Brigadier General Michael J. Silva

16 CEHC Support to COIN Operations

By Mr. Dorian D’Aria

21 Assuring Mobility in a COIN Environment

By Major Iain J. Church

24 Reserve and National Guard Work Together in Iraq

By Staff Sergeant Chris A. Durney

25 Diamondbacks Reduce a High-Threat Area

By Second Lieutenant Charles W. Scheibe

26 Expanding Forward Operating Bases in Afghanistan

By Captain Nicholas O. Melin

31 Detecting Underground Penetration Attempts at Secure Facilities

By Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Tucker Ph.D., Dr. Jason R. McKenna,

Dr. Mihan H. McKenna, and Dr. Michael S. Mattice

35 Winning Hearts and Minds – Eagle Style

By Captain Becky L. Lapidow

37 Joint Engineer Operations Course

By Mr. Robert B. McFarland, Jr.

40 Cooperative Graduate Degree Program at Fort Leonard Wood

By Dr. William J. Daughton

42 Army Civilian Corps

By Ms. Karin Gan

45 Winter Road Construction

By Captain Becky L. Lapidow

46 Dive Team Implodes Building on Kwajalein Atoll

By Captain Charles T. Denike

50 USACE-Navy Team Frees the USS Intrepid

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

54 Firefighting Unit Leadership: An Opportunity for Change

By Captain Max Hanna

January-March 2007 Headquarters, Department of the Army Volume 37 PB 5-07-1

Front Cover: ENFORCE 2007 —

Engineers in Full-Spectrum

Operations. Artwork courtesy U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers®.

Back Cover: Engineer Soldiers

performing vital missions.

NGI EThe Professional Bulletin of Army EngineersNEER

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Major General

William H. McCoy

03 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major

Clinton J. Pearson

30 The Engineer Writer’s Guide

55 Dedication

56 Engineer Update

Inside Back Cover:

Subscription Order Form

UNITED STATES ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

MANAGING EDITOR

Shirley Bridges

EDITOR

Cheryl Green

Jennifer Morgan

GRAPHIC DESIGNER
2 Engineer January-March 2007

Clear The Way

By Major General William H. McCoy

Commandant, United States Army Engineer School

G.

reetings from Fort Leonard Wood

to all of our Regiment’s phenomenal Soldiers, civilians, families,

friends, and loved ones. I’d like to begin

by emphasizing how immensely proud and

in awe I am with the demonstrated performance and potential of our engineer team

to address and affect the spectrum of tough

issues and challenges associated with training, transforming, rebasing, and caring for

the Regiment while simultaneously fighting the Global War on Terrorism. It is truly

a team effort that each of you has executed

with the utmost professionalism, commitment, and passion despite the challenges,

hardships, and resource limitations. Thank you for serving

and leading during this dynamic, challenging, and rewarding

time in the history of our Regiment. Your selfless and tireless

service doesn’t go unnoticed or unappreciated.

Our Army and Regiment are currently confronting a host

of challenges associated with transforming while at war. As

an example, as units address the personnel and equipment

challenges associated with sourcing the operational Army,

we must see through the immediate hardships and shortcomings that you consistently overcome, and focus on the longterm benefits of all your hard work. There is a lot of goodness

in persevering through the challenges to achieve the end

state of our Regiment. The USAES Fusion Cell efforts, which

now include the Active Army and Reserve Component forces,

are the pinnacle of much success. The Fusion Cell continues

to serve as a key way to affect transformation, rebasing, and

sourcing the war. I appreciate your participation in these efforts and ask for your continued support. I would like to

recognize all the great adaptive and persistent leaders who

work tirelessly to this end every day, to include notably the

teams of engineers at the Pentagon, FORSCOM, and HRC

who address some of the toughest issues daily. Thanks for

what you do for the Regiment.

Early this summer, we will celebrate the accomplishments

of the Regiment with the annual Regimental Engineer Force

(ENFORCE) Conference 2007. Block your calendar dates for

20-24 May 2007, and join the engineer community’s military

and civilian leaders (retired and active), the Army Engineer

Association, and commercial industry at St.

Louis and later at Fort Leonard Wood. This

conference provides Soldiers and leaders

an opportunity to participate in working

groups intended to identify force issues and

develop solutions, exchange and disseminate critical information, build and reinforce

long-term relationships, and recognize and

honor the accomplishments and sacrifices

of units and members of the Regiment. A

spouse agenda is planned throughout

ENFORCE to provide exchange opportunities amongst spouses.

Also during ENFORCE, we will dedicate

the newly constructed $10 million Counter

Explosive Hazards Center building in memory and honor of

SFC Paul R. Smith, Medal of Honor winner, 11th Engineer Battalion, 4 April 2003. The facility provides state-of-the-art technology systems and facilities for counter IED functions and

instruction of students participating in a myriad of counter IED

training. This new facility absolutely exemplifies our nation’s

and Army’s commitment and investment in safeguarding and

protecting our service members. Our Regiment remains incredibly committed to this important effort to defeat this current

and emerging threat to our forces.

In recent weeks, our Army experienced a spike in needless

injuries and deaths of Soldiers and families, most prominently

due to motor vehicle and motorcycle accidents. I urge engineer

Soldiers and leaders at every level to incorporate composite

risk management techniques into efforts to protect and safeguard yourselves, your Soldiers, family members, and loved

ones. Wear your seatbelts at all times, follow the laws of the

road, don’t drink and drive, and act responsibly always. Demand and support the same with your fellow Soldiers, families,

and loved ones. Our Army, nation, and Regiment need you on

the team. And your families and loved ones need you in their

lives. Take care of yourselves and each other.

Finally, continue to remember our Soldiers, civilians, families, and loved ones who made enormous, and in some cases

ultimate, sacrifices in the service of our nation. Please commemorate and reflect on their service and sacrifices, and join

me in keeping our brave deployed service members and their

families at home foremost in our efforts, thoughts, and prayers.
Lead The Way

By Command Sergeant Major Clinton J. Pearson

United States Army Engineer School

January-March 2007 Engineer 3

S.

ince the last Lead the Way article,

I have traveled to several installations, and I truly enjoyed visiting

with the Soldiers of the Regiment and being

immersed in the uniqueness of the many

organizations and missions we have in our

branch. You can say that I’m biased, but

our Soldiers are the greatest in the Army.

We are blessed with talented officers and

noncommissioned officers who competently

lead our Soldiers through the varied and

complex missions our Army expects us to

execute.

ENFORCE 2007. Conference time is fast

approaching, and the theme this year is

Engineers in Full-Spectrum Operations. I hope that you are

looking forward to spending this week renewing friendships

and resolving issues as we focus on our full-spectrum

engineering capability in support of our Army. I also want to

address some issues that will shape the focus of the Council

of Command Sergeants Major (CSMs) and generate what I’m

sure will be lively discussion among our senior leaders.

The conference will be filled with extraordinary events and

social activities in both St. Louis and Fort Leonard Wood, to

include vendor displays, the Regimental review, a barbecue,

an Army Engineer Association luncheon, and unit plaque

dedications. The conference will culminate with the annual

Regimental dinner, where we will recognize our 2007 Itschner,

Sturgis, and Grizzly winners; the Honorary Colonel of the

Regiment, Honorary Command Sergeant Major, and Honorary

Warrant Officer; along with our Best Sapper Competition

winners. I don’t have to remind you of the importance of this

week to our Regiment as we continue to Train, Transform, and

Take Care of the Regiment, which continues to be restructured

to meet the demanding challenges of the future. We truly

need to hear input from the field. Among the topics covered

will be ARFORGEN challenges, IED-D updates, and base camp

engineering issues. The complete agenda is on the ENFORCE

site of the Engineer School home page.

NCOES. As our Regiment continues to support the Global

War on Terrorism, we still strive to provide our NCOs with the

quality training they need. These courses would not be successful or relevant without well-qualified, motivated instructors and small-group leaders (SGLs). It is extremely important

to fill these critical instructor and SGL positions with highly qualified NCOs just returning from operations in support of the

war. NCOs returning from operational assignments, who are looking for a challenging and career-enhancing opportunity,

should consider an assignment at Fort

Leonard Wood.

Modularity. In January, the 11th Engineers activated at Fort Benning, Georgia,

and in February the 14th Engineer Battalion converted from a Corps Wheeled Engineer Battalion to a Modular Engineer Battalion (Combat Effects). The 14th is comprised of two Sapper Companies and one

Equipment Support Company. The 16th Engineer Battalion is

preparing to move to Fort Hood, Texas, where it will be reflagged

and become the 8th Engineer Battalion. The 5th Engineer Battalion at Fort Leonard Wood is scheduled to convert to a Combat Effects Battalion in May. It will consist of two Mobility

Augmentation Companies (the 55th and the 509th), one Sapper

Company (the 515th), one Forward Support Company, and a

Headquarters Support Company. The 130th Engineer Brigade

will relocate from Germany to Fort Lewis, Washington, in June.

In October, the 29th Engineer Battalion will be reflagged to the

65th Engineer Battalion, and then the 65th and 84th Engineer

Battalions will convert to the modular design.

Along with my firsthand observations, I routinely receive

e-mails and calls on the great support and effort our Soldiers

provide to installations and missions all over the world. I am

extremely proud of all that you and our Soldiers represent. We

have a common factor that’s evident in all of our organizations: We are all extremely busy and feverishly working to

accomplish the missions of our Army and nation. From shaping doctrine and design of our organizational mission and structure to supporting the efforts related to Operations Noble Eagle

and Enduring Freedom, engineers are completely integrated

and involved.

Finally, continue to focus efforts on the Global War on

Terrorism, maintaining high standards and leading the way as

engineers do. May God bless the fallen comrades and keep

watch over our sons and daughters as we continue to fight

the fight.

Essayons—Engineers Lead the Way!
4 Engineer January-March 2007

F.

ield Manual (FM) 3-34, Engineer Operations, which

has been revised many times over the years, will soon

be revised again. Last published in January 2004, the

intent of this 21st edition is to update keystone doctrinal

guidance for full spectrum engineer operations and support

the new FM 3-0, Full Spectrum Operations, to be published

in the near future. (FM 3-0 is one of the two Army keystone

manuals; FM 1, The Army, is the other one). FM 3-34, the

engineer keystone manual, also supports joint engineer

doctrine in the upcoming revision of Joint Publication (JP)

3-34, Joint Engineer Operations, and serves as a reference

document for commanders and staff, leaders, training

developers, and doctrine developers throughout the Army

and the joint, interagency, and multinational community.

Evolution of FM 3-34

W.

hile many remember that FM 5-100, Engineer

Combat Operations (previously Engineer

Operations) preceded FM 3-34, the full story and

history behind this key reference material isn’t fully known to

most.

FM 3-34 was first published as the Manual of Military

Field Engineering before 1897, and the second edition was

published in August 1897. The material was prepared by the

Department of Engineering at the Infantry and Cavalry School

by a Captain William D. Beach, 3d Cavalry. In those days, it

was printed by a civilian publishing company with the

expectation that engineers would buy it at their own expense.

In 1912, it was printed as professional papers by the Chief

of Engineers and simply entitled Engineer Field Manual,

Part I through Part VII, and was revised in 1917 and 1918. The

parts were as follows:

 I - Reconnaissance

 II - Bridges

 III - Roads

 IV - Railroads

 V - Field Fortifications

 VI - Animal Transport

 VII - Tables and Reference Data

The first numbering of the field manual (the field manual

designation) occurred during the period between World War I

and World War II. The August 1929 version—FM 5-5, Engineer

Field Manual, Volume I and Volume II—contained information

on engineer troops (Volume I) and military field engineering

(Volume II). It was revised in 1932 and 1941.

Before World War II, there were very few manuals

throughout the Army. The basic engineer field manual, like

many others, was general in context and content. It was

expected that units would train and develop their own detailed

tactics, techniques, and procedures (more generally called

standing operating procedures [SOPs]) to accomplish specific

tasks. With the mechanization and expansion of the Army

during World War II, and the lack of time for units to individually “mature” doctrinally, it was imperative that manuals

become more detailed. This was when the development of

specific manuals on river crossing, route reconnaissance,

explosives, and demolitions began. In essence, field manuals

were moving toward being more “how-to” than general in

nature. Also before and during World War II, most field

manuals were pocket-size with the expectation that a unit leader,

officer, or noncommissioned officer would carry them around.

Revising Engineer Keystone Manual

for Full Spectrum Operations

By Lieutenant Colonel Edward Lefler and Lieutenant Colonel Barry Supplee (Retired)
January-March 2007 Engineer 5

Being pocket-size also made it easy to keep the manual in a

field locker or field desk.

In 1943, as the material grew in content and nature, FM 5-5

was split into two manuals: FM 5-5, Engineer Field Manual:

Engineer Troops, published in October 1943, and FM 5-6,

Engineer Field Manual: Operations of Engineer Field Units,

published in April 1943. FM 5-5 and FM 5-6 were revised in

May and August of 1954 respectively. In May 1961, the two

manuals were combined into one again and changed to

FM 5-1, Engineer Troop Organizations and Operations, and

later revised in 1965, 1971, and 1973. In March 1979, the

designation and title were changed to FM 5-100, Engineer

Combat Operations, and it was later revised in 1982, 1984,

1988, and 1996. In 1996, the title was changed again to Engineer

Operations. The current published version (January 2004) is

still titled Engineer Operations, and its designation changed

to FM 3-34 as the Army adopted the joint and North Atlantic

Treaty Organization doctrinal hierarchy system for its

numbering system.

Current Revision of FM 3-34

The Doctrine Division at the United States Army

Engineer School is leading the development of the

revised manual. The development team includes

writers who are former engineer officers, subject matter experts

from the Engineer School and around the Regiment, as well as

the community of combined arms doctrine developers who

review and comment on the drafts. Senior engineer leader input

from across the Regiment is critical to the development of the

manual.

Early in the revision process, a targeted working group of

senior engineer leaders was created that provides guidance

and ensures that all relevant information is identified and

included. They initially corresponded through e-mail and Army

Knowledge Online (AKO), but assembled with other key

engineer leaders at Fort Leonard Wood in December 2006 for

a Council of Colonels. The first council resulted in formulating

and confirming the initial guidance for the writing team and

the development of the detailed strawman for the table of

contents and the program directive.

While the field manual doesn’t seem that old, significant

content and material changes are needed because of significant

operational experience through our participation in the Global

War on Terrorism, current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq,

and other worldwide operations such as those in the

Philippines and during Hurricane Katrina relief. Evolving policy

and doctrine, coupled with joint and Army transformation that

impacts on the Engineer Regiment, led to the development of

the modular engineer force structure that we have converted

to. Our doctrine and other key joint and Army manuals

(recently revised or under revision) need to be synchronized

with increasing focus and emphasis on stability, coupled with

the recognition that the Army conducts simultaneous full

spectrum operations. This impacts conducting multiple

operations simultaneously with distinctly different objectives

on forces in the field, the revised force structure and how it is

employed, and the modified way that the Army conducts its
6 Engineer January-March 2007

operations. The battlefield operating system (BOS) construct

was deleted, and Army warfighting functions (WFF) were

developed, making it necessary to update assured mobility.

Because of these changes, this revision will link from the

three engineer functions of combat, general, and geospatial

engineering to the six warfighting functions. These functions

(first introduced in FMI 5-0.1, The Operations Process) replace

the BOS construct and link to the joint functions in the new

FM 3-0, and will be reflected in a soon-to-be-revised version

of FM 7-15, The Army Universal Task List. The revised

FM 3-34 will highlight and describe the critical engineer staff

integration at all echelons and the importance of functional as

well as multifunctional command and control for engineer

elements. The manual recognizes the transformation to a

modular brigade combat team (BCT)-focused Army and

describes engineer capabilities within that context. In

conjunction with these changes, the manual also updates

integration into the Army and joint planning processes, to

include considerations in the rapid decision-making and

synchronization process (RDSP).

This revision will complement and integrate other recent

and ongoing doctrinal updates within the engineer doctrine

proponency as follows:

 Engineer reconnaissance (FM 5-170, Engineer

Reconnaissance, will be republished as FM 3-34.170/

MCWP 3-17.4) and the related infrastructure

reconnaissance.

 Explosive hazards operations (FM 20-32, Mine/

Countermine Operations, will be republished as FM

3-34.210).

 Gap (river) crossing operations (FM 90-13, River Crossing

Operations, will be republished as FM 3-90.12/MCRP

3-17.1).

 Survivability operations (FM 5-103, Survivability, will be

republished as FM 3-34.300/MCWP 3-17.6).

 General engineering operations (FM 5-104, General

Engineering, will be republished as FM 3-34.400/MCWP

3-17.8).

 Environmental considerations (FM 3-100.4, Environment

Considerations in Military Operations, will be

republished as FM 3-34.500/MCRP 4-11B).

These other updates to doctrine are scheduled to be complete

and available on AKO within the next six months.

Framing the Revision

T.

he December 2006 Council of Colonels validated a basic

framework for the revised FM 3-34 and confirmed the

soundness of the writing team’s initial outline and plan

for the production of this keystone document. The manual

will be framed in two major parts:

Part I

Part I is focused on linking engineer operations to the full

spectrum framework identified in FM 3-0 and JP 3-0 and is

targeted for a combined arms audience for a better understanding of what engineers bring to the fight and how to

maximize those capabilities.

 Chapter 1 answers the question “Why do we need Army

engineers?” and describes the implications of the

operational environment and their focused effect on

engineers.

 Chapter 2 answers the question “Who provides engineering?” and describes the Regiment as well as joint,

interagency, and multinational engineer capabilities. A

discussion on the United States Army Corps of

Engineers® (USACE) will be included.

 Chapter 3 answers the question “What are engineer

operations?” and describes foundations of engineer

operations, including principles, functions, integration

requirements, and other primary considerations for

engineers.

Part II

Part II provides more of the “how-to” of engineer operations,

but remains within the framework of FM 3-0. This part is

targeted more for an engineer audience and discusses specific

engineer roles, functions, and techniques:

 Chapter 4 answers the question “How do we plan?”

 Chapter 5 answers the question “How do we execute (full

spectrum operations)?”

 Chapter 6 answers the question “How do we sustain (our

engineer elements)?”

Currently, it has been identified that ten appendixes should

be developed for the manual:

 Appendix A – Civil Support Considerations

 Appendix B – Selected Combat Support Organizations

and Organic Engineer Staffs

 Appendix C – Field Force Engineering and USACE

Capabilities

 Appendix D – Army Engineer Organizations and

Capabilities

 Appendix E – Sister Service Engineer Organizations and

Capabilities

 Appendix F – Civil Affairs, Multinational, Interagency,

Nongovernmental Organization, and Host Nation

Considerations

 Appendix G – Contract Construction Agents

 Appendix H – Contingency Authorities and Funding

 Appendix I – Explosive Ordnance Disposal Organizations

and Functions

(Continued on page 41)
January-March 2007 Engineer 7

A question that is constantly heard around our Regiment

and our Army is, “What exactly does an ENCOM do?” Or

better said, “I saw something about the ENCOMs in ‘The

Engineer Blast,’ but what do you guys really do?” In years

past, many Soldiers would quickly associate an ENCOM with

conferences in the major warfighting theaters and, of course,

the unforgettable catfish luncheons associated with them in

Vicksburg, Mississippi, or the impressive facilities at the

Argonne Laboratories in Darien, Illinois.

I

.

n the past, the two engineer commands (ENCOMs) have

assumed the role of theater engineer, but primarily in

support of the Army Service Component Command (ASCC)

headquarters. Although a recent 416th ENCOM commander

and a majority of his staff—as well as the commander of the

412th ENCOM—have deployed to Iraq during Operation Iraqi

Freedom, the ENCOM has been a 226-Soldier headquarters

that has not had conditions set for the mobilization of an entire

ENCOM since Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm,

due to its large size and rank structure. That moniker has been

relegated to the era of “your legacy ENCOM.” The purpose of

this article is to show—

 The unprecedented change that is occurring to both

ENCOMs, as driven by a Department of the Army (DA)

Initiative.

 The command and control of units for which the ENCOMs

are now responsible in generating forces to support the

Global War on Terrorism (GWOT).

 The evolution in support to the geographic combatant

commanders (GCC).

 The leadership role that the ENCOMs are playing in the

transformation of the Regiment while at war.

Background

F.

or purposes of this article, the term “ENCOM” refers to

both the 412th and the 416th ENCOMs. Although the

authors are more familiar with the 412th ENCOM, many

similarities may be found between the two.

The 412th ENCOM is a United States Army Reserve (USAR)

unit, nestled in the historic Mississippi town of Vicksburg,

along the Mississippi River. For more than a decade, it has

served primarily as a wartime command and control

headquarters, supporting the United States Army Europe

(USAREUR) and Seventh United States Army in Germany;

the Eighth United States Army (EUSA) in the Republic of

Korea; and the United States Army Pacific (USARPAC),

headquartered in Hawaii. The 412th provides support to the

GCCs along four lines of operation:

 Enable stability operations with engineer capability

 Protect the force

 Provide engineer intelligence and knowledge management

 Sustain the force

The 416th ENCOM, based in Darien, Illinois, also a USAR

unit, has primary responsibility for wartime support of the

United States Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) and

United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) areas of

responsibility.

Together, the two ENCOMs form the only two-of-a-kind

units in the entire Army force structure. Both units are under

the operational control (OPCON) of the United States Army

Corps of Engineers® (USACE) through a formal Memorandum

of Agreement. Both ENCOMs supported hurricane relief under

USACE in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, through the

Mississippi Valley Division, in both Louisiana and Mississippi.

That relief work, and support to Emergency Support Function

3 under the National Response Plan, continues to this day.

TEC Transformation

I

.

n close cooperation with USACE as the lead agency, the

ENCOMs are actively engaged with the United States

Army Engineer School to implement DA Initiatives 18, 23,

and 24:

 Initiative 18 is to establish and provide base operations

capabilities to support the operational Army in a contingency environment.

By Major General Robert J. Williamson and Lieutenant Colonel Adam S. Roth
8 Engineer January-March 2007

 Initiative 23 is to establish a theater engineer element and

the processes needed to plan, train, and deploy in support

of an ASCC.

 Initiative 24 institutionalizes and improves the responsiveness and readiness of civilian capabilities in

support of the ASCC.

 Both ENCOMs—in conjunction with USACE—have

exercised the implementation of those initiatives through the

Castle Quest series of exercises held in the National Capitol

Region. The Castle Quest exercise is a tabletop scenario based

in a joint, interagency, and multinational (JIM) environment.

Once approved, DA Initiative 23, Theater Engineer Command

(TEC), will transform both commands from the legacy-based

ENCOM structure to a TEC.

Each of the respective commodity areas are represented in

the legacy force structure (G1-G8). The challenge has always

been, as has been the case with much of the Regiment’s force

structure, that the United States Army Forces Command

(FORSCOM) would either have to mobilize the entire command

for a contingency or create a derivative unit identification code

for a unit that may possess only a portion of the ENCOM’s

capability. Currently working through the force development

update (FDU) process, DA Initiative 23 would serve to formally

establish the TEC, replacing the former ENCOM organization.

The TEC will have a main element of approximately 99 Soldiers,

commanded by a major general, to form the nucleus for force

generation. The main element serves as a platform for command

and control for two deployable command posts (DCP) each

consisting of roughly 62 Soldiers. The DCPs are led by a colonel

or potentially a brigadier general, depending on the factors of

mission, enemy, terrain and weather, troops and support

available, time available, and civilian considerations

(METT-TC). Under the DCP, the staff is aligned in effectsbased groupings of combat, construction, and sustainment

effects. This new modularity allows the TEC to be deployable

in smaller subsets, while maintaining scalable capability in

support of the warfighting commander.

The DCP can assume command and control of various

specialty “plugs” that it would receive from USACE, such as

a contingency real estate support team (CREST), one or more

forward engineer support teams (FESTs), or other modified

table of organization and equipment (MTOE) units such as a

facility engineer detachment or a construction management

module. This structure further demonstrates its flexible

tailorability to match the requirements of a given contingency.

Having two DCPs in each of the ENCOMs provides the ability

to either engage at two separate echelons of command

simultaneously, such as at the GCC and ASCC levels, or to

provide four total DCPs that could be placed in the Army

Force Generation (ARFORGEN) Model and deployed in

phases. The TEC concept is continuing the FDU process and

has already received input from all Army major commands, as

well as the Engineer School, USACE, and the 412th and 416th

ENCOMs. A decision for the final composition will be made

soon.

Command and Control in CONUS

T.

he 412th ENCOM, under the United States Army

Reserve Command (USARC), is playing a key role in

Army Reserve Command and Control (ARC2) transformation. USARC, under its Millennium Transformation Plan,

is standing down the majority of its two-star peacetime

command and control headquarters, called regional readiness

commands (RRCs), in support of creating four regional

readiness sustainment commands (RRSC) across the country.

These RRSCs will be responsible for the base operations

functions for all units within their geographic footprint. The

units once commanded by the RRCs will now fall under

operational and functional commands, that share both a Title

X support mission to their respective downtraces as well as a

responsibility to maintain their own go-to-war mission.

Consistent with the USARC Transformation Plan, the 412th

ENCOM is considered an operational command—essentially

a senior USAR command headquarters with both engineer

and nonengineer units assigned. The driving reason for the

shift in emphasis on the USAR operational and functional

commands is to ensure training and readiness oversight (TRO)

of Soldiers with similar missions, as well as the efficient

mobilization of its community-based, skill-rich Soldiers and

units to support the joint warfighters whenever needed—

anywhere in the world.

 As one of the first senior USAR operational and functional

commands to lead the USARC transformation, the

412th ENCOM assumed command and control of the new

926th Engineer Brigade on 1 October 2006. The 926th, headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, also is transforming from a

legacy engineer group structure to a brigade during this transition.

The concurrent restructuring of the 926th, while shifting senior

command relationships and assuming command of seven new

USAR engineer battalions during a time of war, further exemplifies

the true nature and depth of transformation within our Regiment.

The 926th’s USAR span of control extends from West Virginia to

Florida, and west to the Mississippi River.

The 412th ENCOM will also assume command and control

of two additional brigades by the end of this fiscal year. As of

1 October 2007, the 411th Engineer Brigade—based in New

Windsor, New York, and currently deployed in support of

Operation Iraqi Freedom with four battalion equivalents—will

fall under the 412th ENCOM umbrella. The 412th will also stand

up the 302d Combat Support Brigade (Maneuver Enhancement)

(CSB [ME]) at Westover Air Reserve Base in Massachusetts.

The 302d CSB (ME) will contain at least three battalion

equivalents, including an engineer battalion, a chemical

battalion, and a military police battalion. The geographic

endstate of the 412th ENCOM footprint will extend from the

tip of Maine to the tip of Florida and west to the Mississippi

River. Similarly, during mid-January 2007, the 416th ENCOM

assumed OPCON of the 420th Engineer Brigade in Bryan,

Texas, and will soon provide command and control for an

additional USAR engineer brigade and virtually all USAR

engineer units west of the Mississippi River.
January-March 2007 Engineer 9

Force Generation and GWOT Support

T.

he headquarters of both ENCOMs have provided

modules of task-organized Soldiers at the operational

level in support of the GWOT since the start of the

campaign. Soldiers from the 412th headquarters have

supported USAREUR, operating as the Office of the Deputy

Chief of Staff, Engineer (ODCSENGR), in multiple rotations.

Additionally, the 412th has deployed its Soldiers to support

several rotations for the Multinational Force–Iraq, and

continues to support the USACE Gulf Region Division and its

subordinate districts. The 412th will continue to provide these

modular capabilities while performing its ARC2 command and

control responsibilities. The 416th ENCOM is currently

preparing to mobilize Soldiers from its headquarters to replace

Soldiers from the 412th supporting the Gulf Region Division

headquarters in Iraq.

As previously stated, under the new ARC2 arrangement,

the ENCOMs will be responsible for TRO of their downtrace

units as they progress through the ARFORGEN cycle. The

412th ENCOM, in conjunction with the 416th ENCOM and

USARC, are jointly developing challenging gate exercises as

units leave the Reset/Train Pool and enter the Ready Pool

through certification in a warrior exercise (WAREX). The 412th

ENCOM currently has responsibility for the only USAR

validation exercise, Operation Sand Castle (OSC), at the

National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California. This gate is

for units to leave the Ready Pool and enter the Available

Pool. OSC has seen a fourfold increase in USAR exercise units,

now currently at 35, and spans the full spectrum of combat

support and combat service support unit employment.

The training organizations within the USAR are also

undergoing a total reorganization. The training organizations

will focus on three areas in the future:

 Initial-entry training

 Total Army School System for duty military occupational

specialty (MOS) – qualified (DMOS-Q)

 Leader development

The 412th ENCOM is forging strategic alliances with these

organizations to anticipate requirements necessitated by

transformation and focus targeted individual and collective

training requirements on a command-wide scale. The

412th ENCOM is engaged with the Engineer School to help

develop an engineer-specific training support brigade, which

will further facilitate the ENCOM’s TRO mission.

 The “take away” is this: If a USAR engineer unit is required

for future contingencies, it will have been trained and deployed

under either the 412th or the 416th ENCOM’s TRO mission.

GCC Support

T.

he 412th ENCOM has maintained habitual associations

with USAREUR and Seventh Army, EUSA, and

USARPAC, as the 416th ENCOM has done with the

Third United States Army. Most of our associations have

remained with the ASCC in support of theater security

cooperation planning (TSCP); however, as we move toward

joint operations, the 412th has engaged at the joint

headquarters level and will continue to do so in the future.

PACOM

The 412th ENCOM has transformed its engagement in this

area to a regional approach, as has the GCC we support. As a

result, our Hawaii forward element and Korea forward element

are merging under a single command and control element.

Korea

The 412th ENCOM will continue its habitual association

with Korea-based missions and the exercises that support it,

to include Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and

Integration/Foal Eagle (RSOI/FE) and Ulchi Focus Lens. The

deputy commander of the 412th ENCOM is also dual-hatted

as the EUSA engineer, further showing our connectivity with

our supported command. Whereas in the past we have

exclusively supported the ASCC EUSA, the 412th has also

identified potential contingency theater engineer synchronization requirements to support laterally the Joint Force

Support Component Command (JFSCC) under United States

Forces Korea (USFK), as assisted by United States Joint

Forces Command (USJFCOM).

Pacific Rim

Just as the 416th ENCOM has done in Central America,

the 412th ENCOM has supported humanitarian construction exercises throughout the Pacific Rim under

USARPAC. Exercise Talisman Saber, a joint rapid airfield

construction (JRAC) mission, will be executed this year in

Australia with support from the 412th. USAR Soldiers and

units will train during Exercise Khan Quest, which will

include vertical construction missions in Mongolia. In the

past year, the 412th has supported the GCC TSCP through

exercises in Vietnam, the Philippines, and Thailand, among

others.

“The 412th ENCOM is forging strategic alliances...to anticipate

requirements necessitated by transformation and focus targeted individual

and collective training requirements on a command-wide scale.”
10 Engineer January-March 2007

EUCOM

The 412th ENCOM has recently formalized an agreement

with EUCOM that will provide engineer planning to support

TSCP missions for the EUCOM J4 engineer, while simultaneously supporting the ASCC USAREUR. Elements of the

412th continue planning with the United States Special

Operations Command, Europe (SOCEUR), for a vertical

construction project scheduled for execution this fiscal year

in Africa. Last year, elements of the 412th supported overseas

deployment training for a water distribution mission in Angola.

Construction missions will continue to support the Joint

Multinational Readiness Center at Hohenfels, Germany, as well.

Transformation While at War

Nearly 100 percent of the 412th ENCOM downtrace will

modularize within the next 18 months. Both ENCOMs,

in conjunction with the Engineer School, are

participating in a Fusion Cell, modeled after the Active Army

Fusion Cell, to address transformational issues that arise in

this truly dynamic period in our history. Participants in this

forum will include all major players in the manning, equipping,

funding, structuring, and training of units during their

conversion. Major issues are vetted by the Engineer Advisory

Board, which is chaired by one of the two ENCOM deputy

commanders and has senior-level participation from major

subordinate engineer commands, USACE, the Engineer School,

and the United States Army Maneuver Support Center

(MANSCEN).

Doctrine and New Technology

T.

he ENCOMs, in conjunction with the Engineer School

and USACE, have actively participated in the revision

of several joint publications, to include JP 3-34, Joint

Engineer Operations. As more and more engineer leaders

return to the command with recent combat experience, the

ENCOMs will have a greater ability to contribute to the revision

of engineer doctrine by synchronizing the experience of a

multitude of different types of units within each ENCOM’s

downtrace and other engineer units.

The 412th ENCOM has served a critical role in technology

transfer that has directly benefited the warfighter on the

ground. Through the Joint Forward Operating Base handbook

and related video teleconferences that address both operational and technical aspects of the Joint Contingency

Operating Base strategy, the 412th ENCOM, in conjunction

with USACE, has provided a key role as knowledge manager

to support the efforts of the Joint Staff. The 412th maintains

key relationships with various agencies, including the Joint

Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Organization

(JIEDDO). This unique relationship has provided the most

challenging training opportunities using current tactics,

techniques, and procedures for deploying units participating

in OSC. Key elements of operational protection will additionally

be exercised during this year’s OSC exercise at Forward

Operating Base Santa Fe, at the National Training Center.

Summary

T.

he anticipated transformation of both the 412th and

the 416th ENCOMs to TECs, coupled with new

command and control missions, support of force

generation, evolving support to the GCCs, leadership in

transformation to modularity while at war—while playing a

key role as a warfighting theater contingency clearinghouse

for engineer capability and support for both doctrinal and

technology transfer—should demonstrate that it’s not

“business as usual.” The current ENCOM is truly “not your

legacy ENCOM.” The ENCOMs of the future look forward to

our mutual efforts among all components to support the needs

of the warfighting commands through unity of effort

throughout the Regiment.

Major General Williamson is the Commander of the

412th Engineer Command. He served in Iraq concurrently

as the Deputy Chief of Staff, Engineer, for the Multinational

Force-Iraq and as the Director of Operations for the Iraq

Reconstruction Management Office in Baghdad. He has

commanded at the battalion and group levels and served as

the Deputy Commander of the 416th Engineer Command. He

is a graduate of the United States Military Academy and the

Army War College and holds a master’s in operations

management from the University of Arkansas.

Lieutenant Colonel Roth is the Deputy G3 of the

412th Engineer Command. He has deployed to Iraq as the

Executive Officer of the 458th Engineer Battalion and has

commanded a combat heavy engineer company. He is a graduate

of the Command and General Staff College and holds a master’s

in mechanical engineering from Boston University.

2007 Engineer Unit Directory

The 2007 United States Army Engineer Unit Directory

is available online in Adobe PDF format at

<http://www.wood.army.mil/engrmag/Engr%

20Unit%20Dir/2007Directoryonline.pdf>. Take a

moment and see if your unit’s listing is correct.

Changes to the Unit Directory can be made by calling

(573) 563-7644 or e-mailing <engineer@wood.

army.mil>.
January-March 2007 Engineer 11

It seems that at every other videoteleconference (VTC)

you attend these days you hear “Title 10, Title 10, who’s got

the Title 10 responsibility?” Or here’s another one: “Well, if

the commander who is tasked with training and readiness

oversight (TRO) of a subordinate functional unit deploys,

then he can either turn TRO over to the senior mission

commander (SMC) at that remote post or designate an acting

TRO commander, with the United States Army Forces

Command (FORSCOM) approving the plan.”

Is it possible to have missed an entire semester at Command

and General Staff College (CGSC)? Paradigms are clearly

shifting. What would happen if somebody gave a pop quiz at

one of these meetings? Name three or four Title 10

responsibilities—Go! The scores would likely be abysmal.

So like any good staff officer, it’s off to GoogleTM. But this

time, the answers are not so easily found.

T.

he term Title 10 is short for Title 10, United States

Code (USC). If you wade through the USC

online, it’s fairly daunting—lots of verbiage and no

CliffsNotes®. It soon becomes apparent that a tutorial or

guidebook would be extremely useful. FORSCOM has now

published a Command and Control (C2) Reference Pamphlet

to assist in strategic communications for the FORSCOM

Modular Force C2 Plan.

At the 20th Engineer Brigade (Combat) (Airborne), Fort

Bragg, North Carolina, we had to get smart quickly. In early

March 2006, we received the attachment orders for a newly

activated battalion at Fort Knox, Kentucky—the 19th Engineer

Battalion—increasing the brigade’s span of control to four

engineer battalions. The 20th EngineerBrigade commander was

given TRO authority of this unit.1 Further dialog with

FORSCOM revealed that two additional battalions were

coming in October 2006—the 7th Engineer Battalion at Fort

Drum, New York, and the 326th Engineer Battalion, Fort

Campbell, Kentucky. It was clear that brigade staff officers

had to become subject matter experts on administrative control

(ADCON)/Title 10 and more specifically on TRO (a subtask of

ADCON/Title 10) to successfully define our role with these

three geographically separated battalions.

On 6 September 2006, FORSCOM issued the executive order

(EXORD) for the Modular Force C2 Plan. This was the Rosetta

Stone document that we were searching for, and Annex J: Terms

of Reference, was a helpful section. Never mind that some of

the terms had predecisional in parenthesis, we now had

details for each term and a helpful listing of TRO responsibilities needed to identify the oversight of three

geographically separated battalions. Select pages from this

helpful reference quickly appeared in leader books throughout

headquarters.

On page J7 of the annex, these TRO responsibilities are

listed:

1. Provide training guidance and approve training programs.

2. Assess state of training and provide training direction.

3. Assess manpower, equipment, and training resource

requirements; coordinate the obtaining of needed

resources.

4. Provide mission essential task list (METL) guidance and

approve the unit’s METL.

5. Receive and review unit readiness reports (USRs).

6. Manage military personnel and equipment, including the

authority to cross-level between colocated, assigned,

or attached units. Cross-leveling between installations

will be directed by FORSCOM.

7. Establish a priority for resources (allocation) among

assigned or attached units.

We can also cross-reference the listing against SMC

responsibilities (installation commander in some cases) as it

pertains to the three remote battalions. These are the ADCONrelated (ADCON (-)/Title 10) responsibilities (also found on

page J7):

1. Personnel services; morale, welfare, and recreation

(MWR)/well-being; legal (including disciplinary

authority unless specified otherwise); inspector general;

public affairs; religious (chaplain); provost marshal;

information management; contracting; installation

engineer services; and resource management support.

2. Weapon and equipment sustainment and repair (above

unit level).

3. New systems fielding and major end item distribution

(but not allocation); SMCs, installation commanders,

or garrison commanders exercising ADCON(-)/

Title 10, minus training and readiness oversight (may

not cross-level FORSCOM personnel and equipment

unless directed by FORSCOM).

4. Providing base support operations, to include training

enablers such as ranges, maneuver areas, training

aids, simulation facilities, and training ammunition.

TRO

Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities

By Colonel Duke DeLuca, Lieutenant Colonel Fred Kaehler,

and Lieutenant Colonel Robert T. Morgan
12 Engineer January-March 2007

With this outlined, the responsibilities of the SMCs for the

three newly assigned battalions were defined:

 7th Engineer Battalion: Commander, 10th Mountain

Division

 19th Engineer Battalion: Commander, U.S. Army Armor

Center and Fort Knox, Kentucky

 326th Engineer Battalion: Commander, 101st Airborne

Division (Air Assault)

Given the myriad of tasks a battalion faces daily, weekly, and

monthly, a good bit of analysis and common sense was still

required to decide which commander would take the lead on a

given topic.

The table below shows only a few of the topics that need

to be looked into to define the lead commander for a given

area. It is evident that both the SMC at the installation of

residence and the functional brigade commander with TRO

have a vested interest in the subordinate functional unit, and

as such, the brigade commander has coordinating authority

with the particular SMC. The 20th Engineer Brigade staff

continues to formalize the working relationship and TRO of

three remote subordinate battalions, as well as a provisional

dive company at Fort Eustis, Virginia. Army command policy,

Army regulations and, potentially, memorandums of

agreement with the SMC’s subordinate chain at the remote

installation will result in a common understanding of

responsibilities.

To further complicate this challenge, the brigade headquarters is slated to deploy for an Operation Iraqi Freedom

rotation. FORSCOM has already anticipated this scenario

and has provided guidance for transferring TRO duties

during deployment. The bottom line is that interim TRO

responsibilities will always reside with a FORSCOM

operational commander. Engineer brigade commanders in

the continental United States have agreed informally that

Defining the Lead Commander

Area of Concern Responsible Commander Remarks

Doctrine TRO commander

Training TRO commander The SMC on the installation of residence provides

training enablers to support the unit’s approved

training plan based on ARFORGEN-informed priorities

for all units on the installation.

Leader development TRO commander (in the rating chain of

the battalion’s officers and

noncommissioned officers)

The SMC will be the battalion commander’s senior

rater2.

Organizational requirements TRO commander and SMC Facility needs are the responsibility of the SMC, but

the TRO commander might assist in sourcing solutions

with certain equipment needs.

Materiel TRO commander and SMC The SMC fields new equipment; the TRO commander

cross-levels and lateral-transfers equipment.

Personnel (manning and

evaluations)

The SMC has the lead in identifying and

sourcing shortages, with TRO

commander input and coordinating

authority.

Subordinate units at remote installations will

incorporate both SMC and TRO commander input into

the commander’s rating chain3.

Facilities SMC

Budget SMC (resourced by the installation) The TRO commander can weigh in with additional

requests for funding if the unit isn’t resourced

adequately.

Unit status report (USR) SMC (formally through the installation up

to the Department of the Army [DA])

The TRO commander gets a copy and

incorporates it into the integrated brigade USR.

Ammunition TRO commander (responsible for

forecasting and ordering) and SMC

(responsible for resourcing)

Equipment left back while

a unit is deployed

SMC

Hired contract support maintains fleet at full mission

capability (FMC) in low-usage maintenance program

or entry into United States Army Materiel Command

(AMC)-managed load-bearing equipment (LBE)

program.

Reenlistment goals and

progress

SMC and TRO commander (per

FORSCOM mission goals and guidance,

both should maintain visibility)

Currently some subordinates have mission goals from

their SMC/installation.

Legal SMC A personnel action that requires SMC oversight and

is also driven by Army command policy.
January-March 2007 Engineer 13

retaining TRO while deployed is the best option,

given the difficulties of

building staff linkages and

training a new unit, its personnel, and its challenges.

This is an Army Force

Generation (ARFORGEN)

Synchronization Conference action, and choices

include passing interim

TRO to the local SMC,

another engineer brigade

headquarters, or a combination. Following the

mission sourcing subconference, the FORSCOM

G-3 Plans Division will

develop courses of actions

and get the FORSCOM

approval for a FORSCOM

commander to perform

TRO for those identified

units. The final decision is

briefed at the ARFORGEN

General Officer Steering Committee and codified at the

ARFORGEN Synchronization Order (ASO) (who, where, and

when). The 20th Engineer Brigade will provide input to

this process.

The 30th Engineer Battalion will function as the brigade’s

rear detachment headquarters during the headquarters’

deployment. As such, it will continue to work and rectify several

unresolved issues in the brigade.

One of these issues is ordering equipment and material

for deployed units. The 19th Engineer Battalion was

activated and then deployed before its modified table of

organization and equipment (MTOE) was fully issued at

Fort Knox, but its equipment shortages were overcome by

getting a large amount of theater-provided equipment (TPE)

in Iraq. Since the 19th’s rear detachment is a derivative unit

identification code (UIC), and a low priority due to not being

a deploying unit, it faces lengthy equipment delivery times

for its shortages. So the 19th can reset and retrain without

waiting for shortages to be ordered and delivered, we

continue to work sourcing solutions with the XVIII Airborne

Corps, FORSCOM G-4, and item managers. Additionally,

the brigade S-4 rear continues to work interpost and internal

brigade equipment transfers to source some of the equipment shortages in the 19th Engineer Brigade and in the

activating 7th and 326th Engineer Brigades.

Today’s plan will likely be modified over time. We recently

learned that one of the brigade’s battalions might inactivate.

But throughout, the brigade motto will ring true—Building

Combat Power! It has taken on a new meaning, as deployable

and lethal modular units are formed every day.

Endnotes

1

In this article, the term “TRO” is used as defined by

Annex J of the FORSCOM EXORD and focuses on the Active

Army/Active Army training relationship, as opposed to the

Department of Defense TRO definition referenced in Joint

Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military

and Associated Terms, which reflects the Active Army/Reserve

Component relationship.

2

Per FORSCOM guidance, as long as the SMC chain is also

a FORSCOM subordinate, the 19th Engineer Battalion commander at Fort Knox will have a revised rating chain from this

example, since he resides on a TRADOC installation.

3

Ibid.

Colonel DeLuca is the Commander of the 20th Engineer Brigade

at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He has had numerous troop

assignments and has deployed to Iraq twice, first as the 326th

Engineer Battalion commander and most recently as the Multinational

Security Transition Command–Iraq C7. The 20th Engineer Brigade

will deploy again for Operation Iraqi Freedom 07-09 as the

Multinational Corps–Iraq theater engineer brigade.

Lieutenant Colonel Kaehler is the Deputy District Commander of

the Chicago District, United States Army Corps of Engineers®. He

was the Deputy Brigade Commander of the 20th Engineer Brigade

and the Deputy Brigade Commander for the brigade’s Operation

Iraqi Freedom 04-06 deployment.

Lieutenant Colonel Morgan is the Assistant Corps Engineer, XVIII

Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He was the

Multinational Corps–Iraq Deputy C7 during Operation Iraqi Freedom

04-06 and previously served as the Combined Joint Task Force-180

Deputy C7 during Operation Enduring Freedom.

20th Engineer Brigade

Fort Bragg, North Carolina
14 Engineer January-March 2007

Engineers have traditionally been

the vanguard in breaching

obstacles and clearing the path

for armies to advance. The term sapper

evolved from the use of engineers to dig

what the French termed a sappe (trench),

using a technique developed for digging

trenches that allowed the opposing

force’s artillery to move forward in the

attack to undermine a fortification.

Sappers became known for their ability

to bypass fortifications or to demolish

them, thus the engineer ability to clear a

path or breach an obstacle.

Today, engineer route clearance teams

(RCTs) are doing the hero work in assuring mobility for combat logistics

patrols (CLPs) and the movement of

other coalition forces on the roadways.

The obstacle encountered today is

typically an improvised explosive device

(IED). Engineers man the Buffalos,

Huskys, RG-31s, and other vehicles as

they set out to find the IEDs before they

detonate on coalition force vehicles. This

protection mission has further proved the

value of engineers in the fight. Once

engineers locate an IED, they turn the

mission over to explosive ordnance

disposal (EOD) teams, who have

extensive training in ordnance and

explosives, having completed an eightmonth certification course for their

military occupational specialty (MOS)

qualification. As long as EOD personnel

are embedded within the route clearance

mission, they are clearly the best trained

Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, or Marines to

detonate IEDs.

Engineer Explosives Training

Engineers do not have a certifying

explosive ordnance course. Does

that mean that they are not

trained on explosives? Certainly not.

When one reviews the program of

training on explosives that combat

engineers have, one might ask, “Why

can’t engineers detonate IEDs?”

Engineers begin their combat engineering training at the MOS 21B10

level, with basic tasks such as how to

neutralize booby traps, construct firing

systems, prime explosives, construct

demolition initiating systems, and

identify characteristics of demolitions

and explosives. Over the years, the MOS

21B20 and 21B30 levels of explosives

training build on the mastery of skills

with successively more complex training;

calculations; and knowledge of explosives, ordnance, blast effects, and

different target disposal techniques.

Like the enlisted and noncommissioned officer (NCO) ranks, engineer

officers learn about explosives and

demolitions with a successive training regimen

taking place over several

years, beginning with their

Engineer Basic Officer

Leader Course and followed

by platoon leader time as a

combat engineer. Perhaps

the most extensive and intensive demolitions and

explosives training occurs

for those attending both

the Explosive Ordnance

Clearance Agent (EOCA)

Course and the Sapper

Leader Course, which has

live demolitions exercises

as a part of the curriculum.

By Brigadier General Michael J. Silva

Photo by Staff Sergeant Chris A. Durney

The Buffalo’s robotic

arm is used to investigate and clear IEDs.
January-March 2007 Engineer 15

Finding an IED

Even though combat engineers

train over the years on explosives and demolitions, are

they trained enough? What happens

when they find an IED?

There are many tactics, techniques,

and procedures for RCTs and many

different techniques and vehicle configurations for the route clearance patrol.

The purpose of this article is not to

discuss those differences, but to

generically describe the actions typically

performed once an IED is found and

needs to be cleared.

When the team members in the lead

vehicle of the route clearance patrol spot

a possible IED on an improved road, the

patrol comes to a halt. While there are

various initiators that require different

responses by the RCT, the first action is

to scan for secondary devices and

assess the environment. The RCT looks

for other possible IEDs nearby,

particularly checking for wires or trigger

devices. The next step is to interrogate

the possible IED, typically by using the

mechanical arm on the Buffalo. Once an

IED is confirmed, a description of the

IED—which may be a full description, to

include the type of round, number of

rounds, and initiation system that is

configured—is radioed to the EOD

vehicle, which could be anywhere in the

patrol. Again, all personnel scan around

their vehicles for secondary devices or

booby traps. The EOD team then deploys

a TALON® robot from their location and

navigates it toward the IED. A camera

mounted on the robot can be used to

allow them to confirm the engineer

assessment, but the robot generally

moves forward and places an explosive

charge on the IED and, once the patrol

is at a safe distance, blows the IED in

place.

On those specific occasions where

remnants are collected after the controlled detonation, engineers scan

around their vehicles before any

personnel, including the EOD team, are

allowed to dismount. On the vast

majority of sites, the EOD team uses the

robot to collect remnants, if they collect

any at all. Dismounting the armored

vehicles is a last option.

This coordinated effort between

engineers and EOD personnel works

great in the combined effort to clear the

IED obstacle from the roadway and

render safe the passageway for coalition

forces and CLPs. However, if EOD

personnel are not embedded, the system

breaks down, creating inefficiencies and

increased risk. Especially in urban areas,

the risk of direct attack via small arms

fire or rocket-propelled grenades increases when too much time is spent in

one location.

Gathering IED Evidence

Engineers have the training,

knowledge, and ability to

detonate IEDs, and they can

identify munitions and refer to the same

or similar manuals as those used by EOD

personnel (such as Navy or Air Force

manuals). Engineers even have some of

the TALON robots that are used to

place the explosive charge on the IEDs.

But an objection sometimes raised

regarding engineers detonating IEDs

is that they do not have the knowledge,

experience, or training to gather the

sensitive forensic evidence necessary

to attack the IED network and get to

the bomb maker.

First, not all IEDs are worthy of

evidence collection, and the most basic

IEDs are typically blown by EOD

personnel without any attempt to collect

evidence. In fact, there may be a 90/10

rule here, where less than 10 percent of

IEDs are exploited for evidence.

Second, this argument is not fully

sound when taking into account civilian

skill sets of Reserve Component Soldiers.

Many of them are civilian law enforcement personnel who bring invaluable experience to the route clearance mission due to their training in

evidence collection and processing.

Such skill sets should be used as an

enhancement to mission accomplishment. These men and women work hard

every day to take “bad guys” off the

streets and know that the slightest

mistake in evidence collection and

handling may allow a criminal to go free.

By tapping into these skills, the Reserve

Component RCTs may be best outfitted

for forensic evidence collection in the

absence of trained EOD personnel.

Conclusion

Engineers spot, interrogate, and

confirm IEDs and scan the area

for secondary devices or other

dangers to the situation. They have the

proper manuals to assist in munitions

A Soldier prepares a TALON robot for use during a route clearance patrol.

(Continued on page 23)
16 Engineer January-March 2007

T.

he events of the past five years have underlined that

the United States and its allies confront a very different

operational environment from the relatively peaceful

and calm environment that so many predicted in the aftermath

of the Cold War. In such a brief period, our military has been

challenged on multiple levels, throughout the total spectrum

of war continuum, which has accelerated change within our

military that previously would have taken decades to effect.

Within a single tour of duty, many Soldiers and units have

experienced everything from the initiation of war and

conventional combat operations, through the transition to

asymmetrical warfare and counterinsurgency (COIN) operations, as well as nation building and peacekeeping efforts.

These unprecedented demands have challenged previous

doctrinal and operational concepts, stressed existing processes, and highlighted the need for the rapid insertion of

technological and procedural applications.

These challenges are readily reflected in the development

or revision of doctrinal field manuals, the creation of focused

organizations to streamline change, the rapid fielding of unique

technological systems and capabilities, plus continuously

evolving tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP). Some of

the organizations specifically created to address these requirements are the Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED)

Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), the Asymmetrical Warfare

Organization (AWO), the United States Army Training and

Doctrine Command (TRADOC) IED Defeat Integrated

Capabilities Development Team (ICDT), and the Counter

Explosive Hazards Center (CEHC).

COIN Environment

What has become extremely evident is the

multidimensional aspect of modern warfare,

consisting of numerous independent actions

simultaneously occurring within the operational environment,

many of which have both local and strategic implications. In

today’s operational environment, asymmetrical warfare and

COIN are as much a part of modern combat as mounted and

dismounted maneuver. Plus, the objectives and methods of

each are so intertwined that they can become indistinguishable

and mutually supportive. Combat operations conducted

against an aggressive and merciless enemy for its tactical

benefit must also consider its impact on COIN objectives. It

becomes a balancing act of measured force to accomplish the

goals of the mission without creating an environment of greater

public dissatisfaction that fertilizes sympathy for our enemy

and loses support from the populace. This manifestation has

even driven change and adaptation from the highest strategic

and operational level down to the tactical level and the

individual Soldier.

COIN is a complex fight and is more a war over people than

a war over terrain. It involves a balancing act of creating

incentives and cooperative support from the populace, while

forcefully providing a stable and safe public environment.

Victory is achieved when the populace consents to the

government’s legitimacy and stops actively and passively

supporting the insurgency. To this end, security is a

cornerstone for successful COIN operations and a principle

target for the insurgent. The insurgent enemy will use terrorism,

media, and propaganda to foster insecurity with the populace,

to promote a lack of confidence in the governmental control,

and to cause the populace to question our ability to be an

effective and stabilizing combat force.

CEHC Support

to COIN Operations

By Mr. Dorian D’Aria

A suicide bomber prepares to strike.
January-March 2007 Engineer 17

In COIN, information warfare (IW) is a critical component

to the success of either side. Unfortunately, perception and

truth are not always synonymous. Insurgents often have an

advantage in shaping the information environment and use it

as a principal weapon to influence the populace and sway

public support. The enemy can make exorbitant promises and

point out government shortcomings, many of which are caused

or aggravated by the insurgent. They use the open media to

learn of our deployments, measure popular opinion, discern

equipment capabilities or TTP, and broadcast attacks on U.S.

forces to intimidate the populace and boisterously project the

impression of invulnerability. On the other hand, U.S. forces

seeking to preserve legitimacy must exercise restraint and

discipline, remain fair and truthful, and ensure that words are

successfully backed by deeds.

Never before have our Soldiers been under such

immediate scrutiny of their individual actions, the

effectiveness of their operations or equipment, and

the outcome of their performance. This is the byproduct of the information age, which is as much a

component of modern warfare as any weapon on

the battlefield. Embedded media; the Internet; the

international press; home videos; and satellite, cell,

and conventional telephones are common IW tools

that can affect the strategic landscape as much as

the most eloquent combat operation.

As a result, the demands on today’s Soldiers are

higher than they have ever been. They must be

technically proficient in the most sophisticated

military equipment in the world, manage volumes of

information, be capable of integrated and joint

operations, plus be innovative and adaptable to

unique situations or emerging trends. Our Soldiers

must be surgically aggressive, massing controlled

fires against the enemy while protecting the innocent and

minimizing collateral damage. They must be hardened against

the violence of warfare, while maintaining compassion for

helpless noncombatants. And they must be direct and decisive,

while simultaneously remaining diplomatic in given situations.

Respond to the Threat

T.

he dynamics of the contemporary battlefield have also

dramatically challenged our Army and generated

significant change in its response to the operational

environment. Our military is being remolded to become more

intelligence-centric; capable of rapid response, seamless

integration, and unity of effort; in addition to being able to

adjust organizational, conceptual, and tactical responses, while

being more culturally aware.

Insurgents hide nearby to

watch, after an attack on

a U.S. vehicle.

Soldiers discover an arms cache during a search.
18 Engineer January-March 2007

Key to this effort are U.S. Army engineers. The Engineer

Regiment is the most multifaceted branch within the U.S. Army

and simultaneously supports the entire spectrum of military

operations. While construction engineers support nation

building by repairing infrastructures, providing public services,

and improving living conditions, sappers provide safety,

security, and protection by clearing routes of deadly IEDs,

assuring mobility to combat forces, and clearing mines or

explosive hazards in operational areas.

From the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)

and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), the United States Army

Engineer School’s CEHC has been at the forefront of this

transformation and has led many of the solutions currently in

place at the Army and Department of Defense level. Some of

those original initiatives included—

 Blast-resistant route clearance equipment (RCE) such as

the Buffalo, Husky, and RG-31.

 Mine detection dogs to support area clearance combat

operations.

 Specialized search dogs to support explosive detection and

counterterrorist operations.

 Prediction of the timing, use, technology, migration, and

evolution of enemy IEDs.

 Development of an explosive hazards tracking system to

provide analysis and a common operational picture.

 Counter explosive awareness training packages.

 Mission-specific individual and unit contingency training

for route clearance and other operations.

 Early fielding of the AN-PSS/14 Mine Detector.

 Development of the tenets of IED defeat for the IED Task

Force from assured mobility concepts.

 Gap analysis and improved doctrine, organization, training,

materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities

(DOTMLPF) integration of solution sets.

 Integration of the combat training centers in counter

explosive collective training.

 Specialized military search techniques, training, equipment,

and doctrine.

Since then, CEHC has continued to respond to needs from

the field while proactively developing innovative explosive

hazards countermeasures. As the Army’s integrator for all

countermeasures involving explosive hazards, CEHC has

defined its critical tasks as follows:

 Identify the threat

 Determine vulnerabilities

 Identify and develop solutions through concepts,

technology, and training

 Integrate DOTMLPF solutions

 Disseminate countermeasures

 Evaluate effectiveness

 Institutionalize solution sets

Know the Enemy

T.

o stay ahead of the IED and explosive hazards threat,

CEHC consistently monitors trends in threat activity

and their tactics and technology and tracks the

migration and relationships among enemy factions. CEHC

performs analysis not executed elsewhere in the Army

and has been called on by the Multinational Corps–Iraq

(MNC–I), JIEDDO, and TRADOC for specific operational

analysis. Between 2005 and 2006, CEHC has analyzed more

than 188,000 incidents and records as part of its explosive

hazards database. CEHC also coauthored a joint paper on

scientific countermeasures to enemy IED technologies and

initiation systems.

The explosive hazards tracking system developed by CEHC,

and originally used in OEF and OIF, has recently been adopted

by Combined Forces Command–Korea as a more efficient tool

to track and disseminate minefields or explosive information

before and during potential combat operations. This change

supersedes the tracking system and methods that were used

for decades prior.

Equip the Force

CEHC remains in continuous contact with the field to

identify equipment needs or gaps in order to immediately provide combat engineers with better

mission capabilities. Having identified a need, CEHC coordinates with program managers, combat developers,

government laboratories, the rapid equipping force (REF),

JIEDDO, and others to evaluate suitable materiel systems and

candidates for potential integration and rapid fielding. Once a

device or item is selected, CEHC assists in integrating the

system and developing its operational concept and training

A prototype of an RG-31 with an arm investigates a

suspicious object during testing.
January-March 2007 Engineer 19

Counter Explosive Hazards Center Contingency-Based Courses

Course Name Course Description

Advanced Search

Operations

(22 courses have been conducted, with 667 personnel trained, since October 2005)

The course covers systematic search procedures to locate specific targets. The types of

search operations that are taught are occupied/unoccupied building search, person

search, vehicle search, route search, and area search. Additionally, in-depth training on the

different components and uses of the Advanced Search Kit is conducted throughout the

course. It is broken into two tracks: search advisers (sergeant first class through major);

and search squad members (up to staff sergeant). Each course trains a total of 33

personnel and is conducted over a 3-week period at Fort Leonard Wood. CEHC is also

working closely with the Joint Center of Excellence at Fort Irwin, California, in the

development of complementary 1-week search awareness training for mission readiness

exercises, plus refinement of the Advanced Search Kit.

Counterinsurgency

(COIN)

Fundamentals

(5 courses have been conducted, with 210 personnel trained, since August 2006)

This is a new course that is taught as a stand-alone block of instruction to the Engineer

Captains Career Course and others, or as a component of the IED Defeat Planning

course. It is designed to provide junior leaders a better understanding of the COIN

environment and how to integrate unit operations to affect strategic success.

IED Defeat Planning (4 courses have been conducted, with 48 personnel trained, since December 2006)

Although the new course has been added to the Engineer Captains Career Course, it can

be provided as a stand-alone resident or mobile training team (MTT) course. The target

audience is aimed at captains, majors, and senior noncommissioned officer (NCO) stafflevel personnel and trains students how to plan and execute IED defeat operations at

division level and below. The course is built around the understanding and employment of

predictive analysis, search, and route clearance with and without RCE.

IED Defeat Train the

Trainer (IEDD-T3)

Course

(57 courses have been conducted, with 2,548 personnel trained, since January 2006)

The course provides students with the individual/collective knowledge and skills required

to provide training for their respective units on IED defeat TTP. It also informs Soldiers of

current IED threats and countermeasures—such as Soldier awareness, IED search,

patrol operations, convoy procedures, entry control points, vehicle-borne IEDs (VBIEDs),

combat driving techniques, and electronic jamming—in a 2.5-day residential or MTT

course.

Route

Reconnaissance

and Clearance

Course (R2C2)

(23 courses have been conducted, with 1,031 personnel trained, since October 2005)

This course teaches the systematic clearance of routes, using specialized mineprotected vehicles (MPVs). These vehicles are the Buffalo, Husky, and RG-31. Each

course trains a total of 32 personnel, divided into four route clearance teams (RCTs)

consisting of six operators and two leaders each. This is a 2-week residential course

aimed at the individual operator and unit supervisors. A stand-alone Route Reconnaissance and Clearance Maintainers Course teaches the maintainer training for military

occupational specialty (MOS) 63B (light-wheel vehicle mechanic) on each piece of RCE,

as a 1-week residential course.

Area Clearance

Course (ACC)

(13 courses have been conducted, with 230 personnel trained, since February 2005)

The course begins with an introduction to area clearance principles, followed by area

clearance operations methods using manual and mechanical clearance techniques and

equipment. It is followed by student-led engineer training presentation and student-led

clearance practical exercise. This 4-day residential course is primarily intended for U.S.

units deploying to Afghanistan and includes the operation of the MV-4 flail system, plus

familiarity with other clearance equipment and techniques.

Route

Reconnaissance

and Clearance

Course-Sapper

(R2C2-S)

(9 courses have been conducted, with 110 personnel trained, since April 2006)

The course is primarily intended for BCT combat engineers and others who will not

have the heavy, specialized RCE at their disposal. The aim of the course is to provide a

basic knowledge of using robotic systems for stand-off detection, investigation, and

neutralization to conduct route clearance operations without the use of specialized

vehicles such as the Buffalo, Husky, and RG-31. This 2-week course has the same rank

requirements as the R2C2 course.
20 Engineer January-March 2007

support package. If necessary, CEHC will also accompany the

system into theater during a final operational assessment.

CEHC coordinates very closely with explosive ordnance

disposal (EOD) personnel and the United States Marine Corps

engineer community to share IED solutions and equipment

and brief JIEDDO to fund the evaluation and fielding of

successful counter-IED systems. Basis of issue plans always

include equipping forces in-theater, as well as the stateside

training base for future rotations or mission readiness exercises.

Through the efforts of CEHC, JIEDDO approved the following:

 Engineer robots equipped with a camera and gripper arm

to investigate and visually confirm IEDs from a safe standoff distance during route clearance operations.

 Gyrocam® Systems security cameras to support engineers

and EOD technicians by providing stabilized, on-the-move

visual detection of suspected IEDs with high resolution

color, thermal imaging, and night vision capabilities with a

laser range finder.

 An operational assessment of prototype IED detection

systems, to include Joint Systems Integration Board (JSIB)

approval for all RCTs and brigade combat teams (BCTs),

pending a successful in-theater evaluation.

Recently, CEHC has been evaluating a prototype IED

Reconnaissance Vehicle, based on a Cougar 6x6 chassis, and

has conducted both system integration and development of

the operational concept to employ it in Iraq. The IED Recce

package will provide enhanced IED detection features and is

intended for use by engineers and EOD personnel. JIEDDO

will send it into theater for an operational assessment in 2007,

accompanied by members of the CEHC team.

In response to a requirement from OEF, combat engineers

need a smaller IED interrogation vehicle, with a lightweight

arm to perform route clearance operations in the restrictive

Afghanistan terrain. As a result, CEHC has provided a Husky

and an RG-31 to the Project Manager-Close Combat Systems

(PM-CCS) at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, to develop an articulated

arm designed to physically investigate suspicious objects,

coupled with a magnetometer to identify metallic objects. Even

though the requirement originated in OEF, systems will be

sent to both Afghanistan and Iraq in 2007. Although a smaller

version of the Buffalo arm, this system will allow better

movement through restrictive terrain and poor infrastructure,

while still providing mobility and stand-off investigation of

explosive hazards.

Finally, CEHC will participate in a follow-up evaluation of

tools and skills provided to the 3rd Brigade, 2d Infantry

Division Stryker Brigade Combat Team (3/2 SBCT) engineers

prior to their deployment last year. This assessment will help

to determine the effectiveness of counter-IED training and

specialized tools provided them so they could assure

mobility for their parent brigade in the absence of heavy RCE.

Several innovative tools were identified to augment the

reconnaissance, explosives, communications, and weapons

already embedded in this vital sapper unit. The Engineer School

team also cross-walked the additional skills that unit leaders

can obtain—either through existing courses (such as the

Explosive Ordnance Clearance Agent [EOCA] Course, the

Urban Mobility Breaching Course, and the Sapper Leader

Course) or new training in areas like special infrastructure

assessment—sewage, water, electricity, academics, and trash

(SWEAT).

Train the Force

A key task for CEHC is training and updating the force

in current counter explosive hazards techniques and

employment of commercial off-the-shelf and

contingency equipment. This instruction enables units to

receive theater-specific training prior to deployment and allows

them to focus on the mission during transition of authority. To

ensure that the training is up to date and relevant, CEHC gathers

the latest intelligence on explosive hazards TTP employed by

the enemy, as well as TTP developed by deployed units, to

counter that threat. Contingency training that will be

permanently retained in the Engineer Regiment, such as

operator training for RCE, will eventually be institutionalized

and transferred to the official Engineer School curriculum.

CEHC has not only trained U.S. Soldiers, Marines, Airmen,

and Sailors, but has also provided training and assistance

to several allies and coalition partners. The table on page 19

lists the current contingency-based instruction offered

through CEHC.

Conclusion

CEHC has been at the tip of the spear, identifying gaps

and developing solutions against IEDs and other

explosive hazards since the Global War on Terrorism

began. Working together, CEHC, the Engineer School, and the

United States Army Maneuver Support Center (MANSCEN)

are part of a joint, interagency, and multinational counter-IED

effort that integrates intelligence, training, technology, and

materiel solutions into a holistic program. It will continue to

seek out the best countermeasures for our units and produce

the best training available for Soldiers at war today, while

ensuring that our forces are prepared to counter the explosive

hazards found in future conflicts around the world.

For more information, call commercial (573) 563-8165 or DSN

676-8165. Or visit our websites at <http://www.wood.army.mil/

cehc/> and on SIPRNET at <www.portal.inscom.army.smil.mil/

cehc>.

Mr. D’Aria is the Technical Director for the Counter Explosive

Hazards Center and has been assigned to Fort Leonard Wood,

Missouri, since 1988. Prior to coming to the CEHC, he was the

senior engineer threat subject matter expert for the Engineer School

and TRADOC and supported Desert Storm, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo,

Afghanistan, and Iraq. In addition to his mine warfare and IED

intelligence background, he also has experience as a tactics instructor

and training developer, military police and security operations, Army

aviator, and combat developments.
January-March 2007 Engineer 21

Although the concept of assured

mobility was designed to ensure

success on a linear battlefield

against a conventional enemy, the

fundamentals of assured mobility are

equally important in defeating an unconventional enemy on an asymmetric

battlefield (see Figure 1). Assured mobility can be described as a model that

enables commanders to see first, understand first, act first, and finish decisively.

While the fundamentals (predict, detect,

prevent, avoid, neutralize, protect)

remain the same regardless of the

operation, they must be understood

within the context of the environment

faced—in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, counterinsurgency (COIN) campaigns on an asymmetric battlefield.

Lieutenant General David H. Petraeus

described the insurgencies in Iraq and

Afghanistan as follows: “The insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan

were not, in truth, the wars for which

we were best prepared in 2001; however,

they are the wars we are fighting and

clearly the kind of wars we must

master.”1 In an effort to master these

wars, the Engineer Regiment is

developing capabilities that are not only

affecting the current fight but also

establishing a potent capability for

future operations—mixing design and

execution of courses to build new capabilities and educating commanders on

how all capabilities, new and existing,

can impact the asymmetric battlefield.

The Engineer Regiment will play a key

role in assuring mobility and successful

execution of COIN operations. However,

to fully understand the impact that

harnessing new and existing capabilities

can have, we need to first understand

the environment they are to be used in.

The linear battlefield is a simple one—

success can be quantified by measuring

the enemy’s remaining combat power in

conjunction with the location of the

front line. In contrast, COIN operations

on the asymmetric battlefield can’t be

quantified as easily and, by their nature,

are drawn-out affairs2

. Unlike conventional war, they rarely produce

instant results. Furthermore, when

successful operations occur, success

can be quickly overshadowed by the

slightest amount of collateral damage

that can be used by insurgents to turn a

tactical setback into a strategic gain.

While serving as commander of the

United States Southern Command,

General John R. Galvin succinctly

captured the problem facing military

powers engaged in COIN operations

when he stated, “The...burden on the

military institution is large. Not only

must it subdue an armed adversary while

attempting to provide security to the

civilian population, it must also avoid

furthering the insurgents’ cause. If, for

example, the military’s actions in killing

50 guerillas cause 200 previously

uncommitted citizens to join the

insurgent cause, the use of force will

have been counterproductive.”3

Ultimately, success in COIN operations is gained by protecting the

populace rather than the COIN force and

by maintaining legitimacy. The effect of

protecting the populace is twofold: First,

COIN forces establish and maintain

legitimacy; and second, the insurgents’

most valuable resource—the support of

the populace—will be eroded. The

protection of the populace and the ability

of commanders to assure mobility are

inextricably linked; you cannot achieve

one without the other. Success cannot

be achieved through the use of kinetic

means alone; success will result from a

combined use of kinetic and nonkinetic

means. In a COIN environment, it is

easier to separate an insurgency from

By Major Iain J. Church

Assuring Mobility in ng Mobility in

a COIN Environment a COIN Environment

Figure 1

The Fundamentals of Assured Mobility

Predict actions and circumstances that could affect maneuverability.

Detect early indicators of impediments to battlefield mobility.

Prevent potential impediments to maneuverability from affecting

battlefield mobility of the force. A key is to develop predict-to-prevent

linkages to detect impediments and identify alternative mobility corridors

needed to...

Avoid battlefield impediments.

Neutralize, reduce, or overcome impediments (from traditional mines to

industrial chemicals) that cannot be prevented or avoided.

Protect against the effects of enemy impediments. Successful application

of assured mobility analysis is gained through a sequential and continuous application of the fundamentals throughout the imperatives en route.
22 Engineer January-March 2007

its resources than it is to kill every

insurgent. Therefore, it is incumbent on

the training base to develop capabilities

and train the force in the full range of

kinetic and nonkinetic skills to set the

conditions for success.

The United States Army Engineer

School’s Counter Explosive Hazards

Center (CEHC) at Fort Leonard Wood,

Missouri, is developing three key

capabilities that will provide commanders

the tools to help protect the populace

and assure mobility: search, route

clearance, and counter explosive hazards

planning. Teaching new skills is easy;

however, as Sir Basil Liddell Hart stated

in Thoughts on War, “...the real

challenge is not to put a new idea into

the military mind but to put the old one

out....”4

 Educating the chain of

command in the use of new skills is just

as important as developing and teaching

new skills. Search and route clearance

courses concentrate on developing

skills, and in order to educate the chain

of command, the Counter Explosive

Hazards–Planning (CEH-P) Course

concentrates on how to employ all

counter improvised explosive device

(IED) assets in a COIN environment.

Search operations, possibly the

commander’s most potent nonkinetic

weapon in COIN operations, can be

offensive or defensive in nature. In

addition, within an assured mobility

context, search operations can impact

across each of the fundamentals, but in

both cases it is a significant force

multiplier. Successful search operations

are crucial to the success of COIN

operations. It is better to find 100

detonators in a cache than to deal with

100 IEDs on the battlefield. Every layer

of an insurgent network is susceptible

to search operations, and secrecy and

plausible deniability are crucial

throughout an insurgent organization.

Intelligence-generated search operations allow the counterinsurgent to

gather the necessary evidence to negate

both. Successful tactical operations

have the potential for an operational and

strategic impact—a successful search

operation may produce the evidence

required to convict key insurgent leaders

in a court of law.

CEHC has started to develop a comprehensive search capability within the

U.S. military, and it was limited to a

3-week advanced search course that

covers six core skills: manual route

search, person search, vehicle search,

occupied- and unoccupied-building

search, cache search, and area search.

However, in an effort to increase the

number of students and better meet the

needs of the field, a 1-week all arms

combat search course has been designed

that focuses on personnel search,

vehicle search, cache search, area

search, and occupied-building search.

Both courses emphasize the importance

of intelligence, planning, flexibility on

task, methodical searching, evidence

handling, completion of documentation,

and postoperation debriefs. The net

result of these courses will be to build a

graduated search capability that commanders can apply to operations

depending on the complexity of the

task and the value of the target.

One of the most overt tools in the

current COIN fight is route clearance

teams (RCTs), with a combination of

Buffalo, RG-31, and Husky or Meerkat

vehicles. RCTs provide a line of defense

against IEDs, maintain lines of communication, and protect the populace and

coalition forces. CEHC conducts a 2-week

route reconnaissance and clearance

course for Army and Marine Corps engineers on the use of all route clearance

equipment (RCE). Training focuses on

the application of fundamental route

clearance principles and is aimed at

operators and platoon-level leadership.

Due to the success of RCTs, it isn’t

surprising that they have become

insurgent targets. A significant problem

that exists for RCTs is the time it takes to

deal with IED incidents. In order to

enhance the capability of RCTs and

reduce incident times, CEHC has

developed a 2-week Route Reconnaissance and Clearance Course–Sapper

(R2C2-S) to train the investigation and

blowing in place (BiP) of IEDs using

robotic platforms. Strict protocols have

been developed outlining when and what

R2C2-S trained personnel can BiP; their

actions will be directed by individual

theater policy.

Because developing new skills

doesn’t answer all of the field’s needs,

CEHC has designed the CEH-P course

to ensure that new and existing skills are

tasked and coordinated to have maximum

impact on COIN operations. The course

is aimed at brigade combat team,

battalion, and company S-3 personnel

who will be responsible for coordinating

all counter-IED assets. It isn’t designed

to be a battle staff course per se. It

concentrates on the importance of integrating assets and fundamentals of

COIN operations and highlights the

impact that current and new capabilities

can have if fully integrated with one

another, such as building linkages

between RCTs; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets;

and predictive analysis. As with all

CEHC courses, emphasis is placed on

knowledge and how to think—not what

to think.

The development of new skills and

the education of the force addresses two

of the three areas critical to success: what

needs to be trained and how capabilities

should be employed. However, the

mindset of commanders ultimately

decides whether a COIN campaign is

successful. It is critical that an offensive

mindset is maintained; adopting a

defensive posture to mitigate risk to

COIN personnel is ultimately counterproductive. Field Manual (FM) 3-24

states, “If military forces remain in their

compounds, they lose touch with the

“One of the most overt tools in the current COIN fight is route

clearance teams (RCTs), with a combination of Buffalo,

RG-31, and Husky or Meerkat vehicles.”
January-March 2007 Engineer 23

people, appear to be running scared,

and cede the initiative to the insurgents.”5

 Efforts to protect the force

have had a significant effect on the

effectiveness of IEDs; however, as

General Peter Pace stated to the Senate

Armed Services Committee: “The increase in the number [of IEDS], despite

the decrease in their effectiveness, has

resulted in about a sustained level of

casualties from IEDs...”6 Figure 2

outlines the significant increase in IED

incidents over the last 2 years7.

The insurgent is thus retaining

enough freedom of maneuver to engage

coalition forces at times and locations

of his choosing; the goals of assured

mobility and protecting the populace are

not being achieved. While clearly it is

important to protect the force against the

effects of IEDs, more must be done to

protect the force and the populace by

preventing their emplacement in the first

place. This can be achieved by applying

the principles of assured mobility,

protecting the populace, and developing

a detailed understanding of the operating

environment.

The Engineer School and CEHC are

spearheading the effort to train the force

to allow the U.S. military to master

operations in a COIN environment. The

skills being developed and trained allow

the insurgent network to be engaged at a

number of levels in such a way as to not

alienate the populace. However, training

new skills alone is not the answer. Success

on the COIN battlefield will ultimately

depend on assuring mobility and

protecting the populace—and achieving

both in a way to enhance the legitimacy of

host nation governments.

For more information on all CEHC

courses, see <www.wood.army.mil/

cehc>.

Endnotes

1

Lieutenant General David H.

Petraeus, “Learning Counterinsurgency:

Observations from Iraq,” Military

Review, January-February 2006.

2

Both General Gregory A. Schumacher, Chief of Staff of the Army, and

General James T. Conway, Commandant

of the United States Marine Corps, have

stated that the Iraq insurgency is likely

to last 8 to 12 years.

3

General John R. Galvin, “Uncomfortable Wars: Towards a New

Paradigm,” Parameters, 16, No 4 (Winter

1986): 6.

4

Sir Basil Liddell Hart, Thoughts on

War, Farber and Farber, 1944.

5

FM 3-24/Marine Corps Warfighting

Publication (MCWP) 3-33.5, Counterinsurgency, December 2006, para 1-149.

6

Rowan Scarborough, “Enemy

Doubles IED Use in Iraq,” Washington

Times, 7 February 2007, <www.wash

ingtontimes.com/national>, accessed on

13 March 2007.

7

Figures derived from the Combined

Information Data Network Exchange

(CIDNE), accessed on 14 February 2007.

Major Church is the Chief of the

Countermeasures Division, Counter

Explosive Hazards Center, Fort Leonard

Wood, Missouri. Previous assignments

include two tours in Northern Ireland,

bomb disposal officer with the 33d

Engineer Regiment (EOD), and second

in command of an air support squadron.

His deployments include Kosovo,

Bosnia, and Cyprus, as well as 6 months

in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is a

graduate of the Royal Military Academy

Sandhurst and the Joint Command and

Staff College.

Figure 2

Year Number of IEDs Remarks

At the current rate, the total

for 2007 will be 40,847

2007

(through 14 February)

2006

2005 12,556

30,515

4,738

Improvised Explosive Device Incidents

identification and often describe in great

detail to EOD personnel what they see

at the front of the route clearance patrol.

So why can’t engineers detonate IEDs?

They can. While EOD-trained personnel

are perhaps the best-qualified individuals for this task, they are not

always available. Long wait times,

increased risk, and mission requirements make it essential that engineers

be allowed to detonate IEDs and complete their mission of breaching the

obstacle and clearing the road for

CLPs, other coalition forces, and local

nationals.

Note: As of mid-March 2007, the

theater command is reviewing the

current policy to allow selected combat

engineers to destroy common IEDs as

part of a doctrinal engineer mission.

One of those missions is being undertaken now by the RCTs. Task Force

Troy and the Explosive Hazards

Coordination Cell have been asked to

draft a proposal for consideration that

would authorize engineers trained in

the EOCA Course and the Counter

Explosive Hazards Center’s Route

Reconnaissance and Clearance

Course–Sapper (R2C2-S) to destroy

IEDs. If approved, it is likely that a new

fragmentary order (FRAGO) will be

published changing the current theater

policy, defining the operational

parameters, and authorizing these

selected engineers to undertake this

mission.

Brigadier General Silva is the

Commander of the 411th Engineer

Brigade (Theater Army) in support of

Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is a

graduate of the United States Military

Academy, where he was commissioned

into the Field Artillery Branch, and has

more than 20 years of service in the

United States Army Reserve as an

engineer. In the civilian sector, he is

Vice President, Finance and Business

Development, for sPs Consulting, LLC,

Lorton, Virginia.

(“IEDs,” continued from page 15)
24 Engineer January-March 2007

A.

rmy National Guard engineers

from the 875th Engineer

Battalion, led by the United

States Army Reserve 411th Engineer

Brigade, are playing a critical role in

ensuring military and civilian mobility in

Iraq, as only engineers can. Their

mission success is a testament to the

strength of the Engineer Regiment, no

matter the component.

Combat logistics patrols, military

columns, and an endless stream of Iraqi

civilian traffic move between metropolitan areas that are critical to rebuilding

Iraq’s infrastructure and economy.

Responsibility for assuring mobility falls

to the Reserve brigade, whose motto of

“plan, build, and protect” describes

perfectly their role in Operation Iraqi

Freedom. To meet the “protect” part of

the motto, the brigade turns to the

National Guard battalion to help assure

mobility by conducting route clearance

missions.

During one of these missions on a

major commerce and supply route, a

route clearance patrol rumbles along at

a snail’s pace; sharp eyes peer out of

reinforced windows and from inside a

By Staff Sergeant Chris A. Durney

succession of heavily armored vehicles.

They are looking for signs of buried

improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

These Soldiers are familiar with this

(Continued on page 36)

A Soldier peers out of the reinforced window of a Buffalo during a route

clearance patrol.

Photo by Staff Sergeant Chris A. Durney Photo by Staff Sergeant Chris A. Durney
T.

housands of Soldiers travel the roads in Iraq

daily, and any one of them can tell you that

certain areas are constant hotbeds for

insurgent activity. Engineers from 2d Platoon,

Headquarters and Support Company (“Diamondbacks”), 92d Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy),

recently helped to eliminate one of these areas.

Along a supply route in central Iraq, heavy

equipment operators from 2d Platoon leveled a berm—

a raised earthen barrier that separates two areas—

that was routinely used by insurgents to hide from

patrols and convoys, just waiting to initiate improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and fire at convoys with rifles and rocket-propelled grenades

(RPGs). The heavy-equipment operators from

2d Platoon worked over 28 hours to level more than

40,000 cubic meters of dirt. During that time, they

rotated shifts and kept the bulldozers running for

18 hours straight. While 2d Platoon leveled the huge berm,

3d Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, provided security. This

was a massive effort by maneuver units and engineers.

After the area was leveled and the threat reduced, Echo

Company put up soccer goals on the now-safe site for local

children. Units and convoys that have traveled the route since

completion of the project have reported seeing children playing

on the new soccer field.

January-March 2007 Engineer 25

Enemy activity at this location has decreased significantly

since the berm is no longer there for insurgents to hide behind.

Convoys and patrols are safer and can now maneuver through

the area with greater ease. But even though the primary goal

of this mission was to change the area so the enemy could no

longer use it as key terrain, just as importantly, 2d Platoon

provided a positive influence for a few more Iraqis of the next

generation.

Second Lieutenant Scheibe is the Equipment Platoon

Leader, Headquarters and Support Company, 92d Engineer

Battalion (Combat) (Heavy). He holds a bachelor’s in history

and political studies from Chaminade University, Honolulu,

Hawaii.

Note: The 92d Engineer Battalion is deployed to Iraq

under the 411th Engineer Brigade, New Windsor, New York.

The 92d was deployed for the start of Operation Iraqi

Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom 04–06, and now

Operation Iraqi Freedom 06–08—continuing its

same mission of keeping supply routes safe for coalition

forces.

By Second Lieutenant Charles W. Scheibe

Photo by Captain Steven Johnson

The berm was removed, decreasing enemy activity and

making way for a new playing field.

A D7 bulldozer grubs the project site.

Photo by First Lieutenant James Yount
26 Engineer January-March 2007

T.

he Soldiers of Task Force Pacemaker completed

numerous road construction missions during their

deployment to Afghanistan. However, their nationbuilding efforts and major infrastructure improvements could

not be conducted until they first constructed safe havens to

operate from. Three forward operating bases (FOBs) were

constructed and two existing FOBs were expanded across

southeastern Afghanistan. The expansion of the Sharana

Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) base is a good example

of military construction in Afghanistan. An analysis of this

project provides valuable lessons learned that can be applied

to the construction of future base camps in austere areas.

The Sharana PRT base is located outside of the city of

Sharana. On open terrain with good drainage and no local

national property rights issues, it was ideal for expansion from

a small base to a larger logistical and operational hub. Sharana,

the capital and second largest city in Paktika Province, had a

network of roads that required improvement to support the

new democratic local government.

The expansion of the Sharana PRT base allowed the

construction of improved gravel roads in an area long deprived

of a reliable transportation network. Linking the capitals of

Paktika and Paktia Provinces to the main paved ring road

system—the major trade roads that form a loop by connecting

major cities—allowed the central government of Afghanistan

to move more freely in areas that were isolated from

government influence. Medical assistance, international aid,

and security from the Afghan National Army and the Afghan

National Police were all benefits to the Afghan people resulting

from the FOB and road construction.

The Plan

D.

uring the summer of 2005, Task Force Sword (the

engineer brigade headquartered in Afghanistan)

chose the Sharana PRT base as the future hub of

engineer operations in Paktika Province. It was to house

elements of Task Force Sword as they completed road

construction projects in the area. Task Force Pacemaker would

then take over the expansion, while continuing the

construction of a network of two-lane gravel roads around

the town. All Task Force Pacemaker elements would then move

to the Sharana PRT base in December 2005 to support the

By Captain Nicholas O. Melin
January-March 2007 Engineer 27

turnover of Regional Command South to the International

Security Assistance Forces (ISAF). The final phase of the

expansion would ensure that all facilities were complete,

allowing incoming units to use the Sharana PRT base as a hub

of operations for continued road construction efforts in

the area.

Getting Started

T.

he first phase of construction began in early September

2005. Force protection walls and guard towers were

built, and two Soldier living areas were initiated. By

the end of October, significant progress was made on phase

one objectives, with construction of Soldier barracks and a

command post completed.

Task Force Pacemaker assumed the mission in October 2005.

Upon arrival, a survey of construction operations was

conducted to decide which areas required action next. Due to

mission requirements, road construction projects in the area

required that the Sharana PRT base be expanded within a twoto three-month period. The need to provide immediate living

space had led to rapid construction of living facilities, so the

ground had not been leveled, compacted, or graveled, and

many buildings were constructed on a slope. Additionally,

some facilities needed to be winterized. Drainage in some

areas was insufficient for wet Afghan winters, and a

comprehensive electrical design and layout was necessary

for efficient use of generators.

The two most pressing issues were materials management

and funding. The surge of large amounts of construction

materials into the small base made materials management

difficult. Also, there was an increase in troop requirements in

the middle of the project that made initial estimates no longer

valid.

 Although a system was already in place to track materials

on the FOB, they were not consolidated and allocated

to projects by priority. This led to confusion with multiple units conducting

construction operations.

 An audit of project funding also revealed

shortfalls. Funding was provided in three

separate segments, corresponding with

the construction phases. However, cost

estimates for the project were determined

without completing a design and full

material estimate. Thus, the actual cost

of materials was far higher than

forecasted.

In order to address these issues and complete

the expansion on time, Task Force Pacemaker

assembled a construction team of military

engineers, local Afghan contractors, and

civilian contractors from KBR (formerly

Kellogg, Brown and Root).

Completing the Mission

T.

he first step was to create a comprehensive timeline of all construction tasks. Priorities were

established for the remaining tasks, with the focus on

completing the force protection plan; providing proper living

areas and sanitation; and expanding morale, welfare, and

recreation facilities. Combined Joint Task Force 76 dictated

that facilities be jointly used by all tenant units, so most

facilities on the FOB required expansion.

The designs were reviewed, and additional tasks were

added to meet the construction intent. An example is the construction of a pump house—a required winterization task—

for the expansion well. Additionally, there was a need for a

clarification and water storage system on the base. These three

needs were combined into a single facility, which was not

initially identified as a task.

A contracting officer was assigned to manage all contracts,

and the progress of those facilities was integrated into the

construction plan. The local construction community provided

valuable manpower for large tasks, and local construction

methods were suitable for use on the FOBs in many areas.

Designs and material estimates were completed for all facilities

to correct funding issues. The tasks were then redistributed

through the three funding blocks to ensure that all stayed

within cost limitations.

During construction operations, it became apparent that

consolidating and tracking construction materials was

necessary. With more than 80 individual projects at various

stages of completion, there were huge amounts of construction

materials. No shortage lists existed to track what was available

for construction and what should be ordered. A complete

inventory of the shipping containers—to include location,

contents, and serial numbers—was conducted, and a database

of all construction materials on the Sharana PRT base was

U.S. Army photo by 1LT Claudia Crossland, Task Force Pacemaker

A small emplacement excavator (SEE) operator digs through the rocky

terrain so sewage pipes can be laid.
28 Engineer January-March 2007

established. Finally, all construction materials were consolidated into a single area, and the S-4 tracked and controlled

their release.

Surveyors conducted a topographic survey of the base to

show areas where drainage issues would appear once winter

rains began. Additionally, they mapped electrical and

communications lines on the base and established a master

drawing of the expansion. To prevent severing lines during

construction operations, a dig permit system was established.

The surveyors determined a layout for the sewer and water

distribution systems, including the repair and integration of

the existing water and sewer systems inside the compound.

Unfortunately, the ground beneath the expansion site was

solid rock a foot below the surface. An excavation plan to dig

to a depth of 4 feet (below the frost line) for all sewer and water

lines was required. The result was one water system with two

operational and insulated wells and all sewage generated on

the base flowing to a two-basin oxidation pond.

Obstacles

The constructing commander faced a number of

obstacles that complicated construction. The first was

employment of local national workers. Many of the

workers were unskilled and could only do the most basic tasks,

such as filling sandbags. As a result, the employment of large

numbers of these workers actually slowed the work.

Additionally, the commander had to ensure that proper force

protection methods were used when interacting with local

nationals. Despite these issues, integrating local workers

provided extra muscle for tasks and generated good will in the

community by providing jobs.

Another obstacle to efficient construction was the flow of

materials. By December, the stockpiled materials on the Sharana

PRT base were largely depleted. Local national haul of materials

proved unreliable, and long haul distances from coalition

logistical bases slowed the flow of materials. In order to

continue construction, each Task Force Pacemaker platoon

engaged multiple tasks. This allowed progress to continue

with available materials while additional materials were

transported. However, many tasks remained unfinished for

months while awaiting key construction materials.

Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures

C.

onstruction at the Sharana PRT base highlights

tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) to

minimize the difficulties of construction in an austere

theater of operations. They are as follows:

Soldiers transport hand-mixed concrete with wheelbarrows during the placement of a maintenance pad.

U.S. Army photo by 1LT Claudia Crossland, Task Force Pacemaker
January-March 2007 Engineer 29

 Determine the purpose of the expansion. What is the

standard of construction for the expansion? If

building to facilitate a construction project, determine

the need for facilities after your departure.

 Determine funding constraints and a timeline for receiving

construction materials on-site. In Afghanistan, the funding

process—from submitting the funding request paperwork

to approval and receipt of materials—takes at least two

months. The design, bill of materials (BOM), and all

contracting requirements need to be determined two

months in advance.

 Conduct a thorough reconnaissance and construction

assessment. The following information is essential for

expanding an FOB:

ó .Electrical layout and capacity.

ó .Water distribution system layout.

ó .Sewer system layout.

ó .Available square footage within existing perimeter.

ó .Available area outside of the existing walls.

ó .Portion to be cleared.

ó .Existing facilities on the base and their capability for

.co-use.

ó .Drainage analysis.

ó .Location for grey and, if necessary, black water

.disposal.

ó .Topographic survey results of the construction area

.for accurate initial design.

 Develop an initial plan for construction operations.

ó .Determine the population requirement (adding a

.10 percent overage for surge).

ó .Calculate the number of required shower heads, toilet

.seats, and urinal soakage pits.

ó .Determine the layout for the water distribution

.system. Minimize the system size to save on required

.plumbing materials.

ó .Determine a force protection plan.

ó .Identify theater-level requirements before

.construction.

ó .Determine heating and cooling requirements.

ó .Determine dining facility requirements.

ó .Develop an initial FOB layout.

ó .Determine the required electrical layout.

ó .Integrate delays in receiving construction materials.

ó .Determine the required number and type of con-

.tractors required for the expansion. Their expertise

.is essential for heating, ventilation, and air-

.conditioning work; plumbing; and electricity.

 Order construction materials as soon as possible.

Essential items are in high demand across the theater

and may take two or more months to procure.

ó .Develop a detailed BOM.

ó .Prioritize construction materials by phase of the

.construction project, taking into account delays

.caused by local national contract transportation.

ó .Stockpile and secure materials at the location, if

.possible, or—at a minimum—transport materials for

.the initial construction with the unit by military

.convoy.

 Conduct troop-to-task for projects (assigning the proper

number of Soldiers and types of equipment to successfully

execute a task).

ó .Consider both vertical and horizontal tasks.

ó .Identify key equipment shortages that affect progress.

ó .Determine the number of local nationals to employ

.and the contracted equipment set required to fill

.shortages.

ó .Determine tasks that must be contracted as soon as

.possible.

ó .Initiate the process of finding contractors and

.securing funding.
 Monitor all local national contractors, and expect delays

with any task completed using contract rather than military

labor. Local holidays will halt all local national labor.

Potential projects for engineer units in areas of operation

like Afghanistan are varied. There are situations where time is

not available for detailed planning, and units must attempt to

execute the mission as completely as possible, given the

available resources. Application of some or all of these TTP

should help to avoid potential construction issues and ensure

the timely completion of construction.

The Results

W.

hen completed, the capability of the Sharana PRT

base was greatly expanded. The maximum supportable population increased more than seven

times its original size. The base now has showers, an operational

laundry facility, and latrines with flushing toilets. The water

system has operational pump houses that provide redundancy

for the entire facility. The motor pool has office buildings and

maintenance facilities that provide heated, all-weather maintenance areas for a battalion task force and a direct-support shop.

The Task Force Pacemaker expansion of FOBs supported

the construction of road networks throughout Afghansitan.

30 Engineer January-March 2007

The long-term result was that the capitals in Zabul, Paktika,

and Paktia Provinces were linked to the paved ring road around

Afghanistan. This new freedom of movement allowed the

central government of Afghanistan to move easier in areas

that were once isolated from government influence. Medical

assistance, international aid, and security from the Afghan

National Army and the Afghan National Police were all benefits

to the Afghan people resulting from the road construction.

The roads also facilitated the growth of the Afghan economy

by providing reliable, all-weather routes for goods and services

to move between provinces. The increase in traffic along the

routes and the appearance of gas stations and markets in areas

that were deserted before road work was completed is evidence

that the road campaign conducted by United States Army

engineers in Afghanistan made a difference.

Captain Melin, the Commander of Bravo Company, 864th

Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy), conducts road construction and forward operating base improvement. He

previously managed the Task Force Pacemaker construction

projects as the Assistant S-3 for the 864th Engineer Battalion

at Fort Lewis, Washington. He is a graduate of the United

States Military Academy.

○○○○○○ The Engineer Writer’s Guide ○○○○○○

Engineer is a professional-development bulletin

designed to provide a forum for exchanging information

and ideas within the Army engineer community. We include

articles by and about officers, enlisted soldiers, warrant

officers, Department of the Army civilian employees, 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.

Articles should be concise, straightforward, and in the

active voice. If they contain attributable information or

quotations not referenced in the text, provide appropriate

endnotes. Text length should not exceed 2,000 words

(about eight double-spaced pages). Shorter after-actiontype articles and reviews of books on engineer topics are

also welcome.

Include photos (with captions) and/or line diagrams

that illustrate information in the article. Please do not

include illustrations or photos in the text; instead, send

each of them as a separate file. Do not embed photos

in PowerPoint. If illustrations are in PowerPoint, avoid

excessive use of color and shading. Save digital images

at a resolution no lower than 200 dpi. Images copied

from a Web site must be accompanied by copyright

permission.

Provide a short paragraph that summarizes the content

of the article. Also include a short biography, including

your full name, rank, current unit, and job title; a list of

your past assignments, experience, and education; your

mailing address; and a fax number and commercial

daytime telephone number.

Articles submitted to Engineer must be accompanied

by a written release by the author’s unit or activity security

manager prior to publication. All information contained in

the article must be unclassified, nonsensitive, and

releasable to the public. Engineer is distributed to military

units worldwide and is also available for sale by the

Government Printing Office. As such, it is readily accessible to nongovernment or foreign individuals and

organizations.

We cannot guarantee that we will publish all submitted

articles. They are accepted for publication only after

thorough review. If we plan to use your article in an

upcoming issue, we will notify you. Therefore it is important

to keep us informed of changes in your e-mail address

and telephone number. All articles accepted for publication

are subject to grammatical and structural changes as well

as editing for style.

Send submissions by e-mail to <engineer@wood.

army.mil> or on a 3 1/2-inch disk or CD in Microsoft Word,

along with a double-spaced copy of the manuscript, to:

Managing Editor, Engineer Professional Bulletin, 320

MANSCEN Loop, Suite 348, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

65473-8929.

Note: Please indicate if your manuscript is being

considered for publication elsewhere. Due to the limited

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

been accepted for publication by other Army professional

bulletins.
January-March 2007 Engineer 31

T.

he protection of secure facilities such as forward

operating bases (FOBs) and theater internment

facilities (TIFs) is an emerging issue in light of the

successful and nearly successful underground breaches at

overseas bases, along our borders, and at prisons in foreign

countries where suspected terrorists are held. The armed

forces are now investigating sensor modalities to protect secure

facilities, because covert tunnels can conceal and protect

terrorist activities, weapons of mass destruction, command

and control facilities, and other functions. The technological

sophistication observed in some of the tunnels (such as uses

of power conduits; heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning

[HVAC] systems; reinforced concrete; and other metallic

objects) shows a high degree of engineering skill and financial

backing. But seismic and acoustic technology that is currently

available can be used to span the underground protection

gap within our force protection strategy.

During studies conducted at a base camp in Iraq from JulyNovember 2005, the most promising technology used an array

of acoustic and seismic sensors placed at various depths to

determine the characteristic signatures produced by underground tunneling, as well as signatures produced by personnel

and equipment typically located within a base camp (such as

generators, vehicles, and heavy equipment). Subsequent

analysis determined that local geologic characteristics were

of primary importance in governing both surface and subsurface signals of interest.

Site Geology and Test Facility

T.

he general geologic setting of the base camp consists

of various layers of fine-grained sediments from

surficial windblown silts and sands to compacted silt

and clay-bearing layers with varying amounts of gypsum and

unconsolidated coarse to fine sands at a depth of 7 meters. All

sediments are damp below about 1 meter.

The windblown material is typically well-rounded quartz

grains that are 1 millimeter or less in diameter. This mixture

of small mineral grains becomes cemented at a depth of about

30 centimeters, apparently due to precipitating gypsum

minerals. This top layer gives way to between three or four

distinct layers of buff or tan layers that are intermixed with

gray-green layers of compacted silts and clay minerals

(Figure 1). These layers vary in depth and vertical extent,

depending on the location within the camp. Gypsum is present

in the upper layers.

By Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Tucker Ph.D., Dr. Jason R. McKenna, Dr. Mihan H. McKenna,

and Dr. Michael S. Mattice

Figure 1. A typical strata sequence in the study area. Note the subtle color changes

and weathering differences.

Detecting Underground

Penetration Attempts at Secure

Facilities
32 Engineer January-March 2007

Within the base camp, the natural topography has been

disturbed by extensive leveling and building. However,

throughout most of the area, an unconsolidated layer of sand

is encountered at a depth of about 6.5 to 7 meters. The sand

layer has visibly distinct bedding planes occurring at all angles.

The overlying silt slumps into the sand layer so there is not a

distinct boundary between the two layers.

To validate sensor performance, an 8-meter vertical shaft

with an interior side dimension of 1.2 meters (4 feet) was

designed and constructed. Camp personnel excavated a pit

with a vertical wall (Figure 2) where the shaft was placed so

the tunnel would be right at the silt-sand contact (about

7 meters deep at this spot). This allowed about 1 meter of

the shaft to stick up aboveground. A pulley system attached

to a head frame allowed the spoil to be removed at about

0.25 cubic feet per bucket (about one-third of a 5-gallon

bucket).

The tunnel leaving the shaft was about 1.2 meters in height

and width, and the shoring consisted of vertical posts with

2 by 6 lumber on the top and sides (Figure 3). The tunnel

began in the sand layer, and almost immediately, the silt

layer slumped into the course of the tunnel from the right,

leaving only about one-third of the working face as

unconsolidated sand. Thus, the back and sides of the tunnel

were constructed in hard silt, which made

the tunnel extremely safe. However, it took

about 3 days to dig the tunnel to the

desired length (6 meters) before testing

was initiated. The data collection was

initiated at this length in an attempt to

minimize any backscatter problems from

the digging operations and unwanted

clutter noise coming down the shaft and

into the tunnel. Analysis of the data could

not detect any such spurious acoustic or

seismic contamination.

Geophysical Data

T.

he data collection sensors were

placed along the line of the tunnel

and perpendicular to it. The sensors

were also placed at varying depths to

determine the attenuation capabilities of the

layers for sounds generated at the surface

and in the tunnel (such as from trucks,

generators, walking, and digging). A variety

of data was collected during underground

digging operations, which was completed

with tools similar to those used by detainees

to construct tunnels. After a series of

signal-processing algorithm are implemented, it is possible to automatically

differentiate signals underground at the

90 percent confidence interval or better

(Figure 4).

Figure 2. The shaft in place. Note the various layers of compacted silt.

Figure 3. A look down the tunnel to the working face.
January-March 2007 Engineer 33

It is important to note that the near-surface

environment is dynamic: changes in the soil

conditions in the upper few meters of soil

can influence sensor performance dramatically. For example, after the initial series

of data was collected, a 36-hour rain occurred.

After the rain stopped, a second series of

tests was conducted, using the same

collection parameters. The particular signature of a source signal did not change, but

the amplitudes increased significantly. The

increase in the amplitude of the measured

data varied from 10-15 decibels (dB) up to

450 hertz (Hz) (Figure 5). This is interpreted

to be the infilling of interstitial voids by water,

providing a better medium for wave propagation than grain-to-air and grain-to-grain

interface. These types of evolving sensorsoil interactions illustrate the need for

multisensor protection models and also

illustrate why simple threshold detection

methods invariably have high falsealarm rates.

Force Protection Models

A.

nalysis of the test data indicate that passive seismic

and acoustic collection arrays will detect and classify

active digging operations near a protected facility after

advanced signal processing is performed. Emplacement of a

seismic/acoustic array will cause a minimal surface footprint

or impact to the facility operations. Five concerns need to be

addressed to take full advantage of this technology:

 Designing and integrating the seismic/acoustic array into

the overall security plans of the facility.

 Constructing the array in conjunction with the facility to

minimize costs and maximize effectiveness.

Figure courtesy of BBN Technologies

Figure 5. Example of the increase in seismic amplitude after a steady 36-hour rain (same source

and location).

Transverse Component Before and After Precipitation Event: 20 ft North and 40 ft East of Source

Frequency (Hz)

Time (msec)

Velocity (ms-1) Increase in Power (dB)

Figure 4. Results of signal processing to automatically classify signals

originating from the surface and underground.

Time (minutes)

Figure courtesy of Dr. Jason R. McKenna
34 Engineer January-March 2007

 Collecting enough data to categorize the cultural signatures

within and near the facility in order to integrate these

signatures into the detection algorithm.

 Training the facility managers on the system and how to

recognize anomalies (for example, if actual tunneling

occurs).

 Maintaining reachback to the system administrator to

provide expert interpretation, troubleshooting advice, and

additional upgrades as situations change.

The working system that is envisioned contains the sensor

array along the perimeter, continuously collecting data that is

fed into a central data processing or monitoring site at the

facility. This is where incoming signals are compared to test

modules. Any detection of targeted frequencies or modules

alerts the on-site system managers. At this point, the data

stream with the module or frequencies of interest can be sent

to a reachback service for confirmation and/or further analysis.

The key to a successful interception operation is continued

surveillance of incoming underground data and triangulation

of the source in reference to depth and direction. Most of the

tunnels take time to construct, particularly if they are constructed by hand. Commanders then make decisions on the

best method to intercept the perimeter intrusion.

It is important to realize that during this study, the TIF

operations focused on detecting outgoing tunnels. However,

there is a significant need to detect incoming tunnels that

could bring explosives or weapons into a secure facility. A

tunnel used to breach the security perimeter of an outpost

along the Israeli border contributed to the military operations

that were conducted this past summer in Lebanon between

the Israeli Defense Forces and Hezbollah.

Another important aspect of the system data analysis is to

ensure that the false positive rate is kept to a negligible rate.

One solution is to provide the facility with its own tunnel,

where periodic testing of the sensor array would originate.

This negative Z detection capability provides commanders

confidence in their force protection technologies.

To illustrate the usefulness of such a force protection model

globally, consider the Otay Mesa tunnel discovered on

26 January 2006. The tunnel, one of four located within a twoweek period between Tijuana, Mexico, and San Diego,

California, is the longest (approximately 731 meters, or

2,400 feet) and most sophisticated tunnel ever found under

the southern border of the United States. Beginning in a

warehouse near the Tijuana Airport in Mexico, it follows a

northeasterly route to a warehouse in Otay Mesa, California.

The entrance on the U.S. side was concealed by the tile floor

of an office in the warehouse.

Soil sampled in the tunnel was very moist and sandy and

contained large (at least 4-centimeter) clasts of volcanic tuff.

Layers of clay were interbedded with the sandy material, and

white concretions were visible throughout. In the Otay Mesa

area, the geology is very similar to that encountered overseas.

The seismic-acoustic signals from digging appear very similar

to those detected overseas, but here, the ambient noise is

much more intense. However, despite the presence of numerous trucks idling near the sensors, the signals of interest are

clearly visible.

Conclusions

P.

rotecting underground perimeters is the next capability

gap to be bridged in the force protection arena. The

potential underground penetration of secure facilities

needs to be addressed in our current force protection models

and capabilities. A system for protection of these facilities

must be planned during the earliest phase of facility

construction and integrated into the construction scheme. The

system must be able to monitor or detect attempts at

underground penetration; use current technologies for

immediate operational employment and upgrades; and be

easily monitored by personnel at the site, with constant

technical reachback ability. The use of seismic and acoustic

sensors provides the facility commander with an excellent

passive data collection capability that can readily distinguish

tunneling activities from the surface-originating sounds

encountered on a base.

Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank the Soldiers

of the 18th and 43d Military Police Brigades and their

subordinate units for supporting the study and KBR (formerly

Kellogg, Brown and Root) for their support. Additionally,

we wish to thank BBN Technologies for support during

OCONUS field collection and subsequent analysis. The

United States Army Rapid Equipping Force, Joint Task Force

North, and the United States Army Engineer Research and

Development Center (ERDC) TeleEngineering Operations

Center provided support to this study. The Director of the

Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory at ERDC granted

permission to publish this article.

For additional information on the study, contact Lieutenant

Colonel Tucker at <robert.tucker2@us.army.mil>.

Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Tucker is assigned to the

Capability Development & Integration Directorate (CDID)

at the MANSCEN Futures Center, Fort Leonard Wood,

Missouri. He holds a doctorate in geochemistry from

Colorado School of Mines.

Dr. Jason R. McKenna is a geophysicist at the United

States Army Engineer Research and Development Center,

Vicksburg, Mississippi, and the technical lead for the ERDC

Tunnel Detection and Deterrence Team.

Dr. Mihan H. McKenna is a geophysicist at the United

States Army Engineer Research and Development Center,

Vicksburg, Mississippi, specializing in seismic-acoustic

monitoring.

Dr. Michael S. Mattice was the project lead, working with

the United States Army Rapid Equipping Force, Fort Belvoir,

Virginia.
 January-March 2007 Engineer 35

T.

he concept of “winning the hearts

and minds” is heard so often in

the media when discussing the

Global War on Terrorism that it has

almost become meaningless. Winning

hearts and minds can be especially

tough in a country such as Afghanistan,

where decades of armed conflict have

made the rural population leery of armed

personnel bearing gifts. Despite this

challenge, elements from the Afghan

National Army (ANA); Headquarters

Company, Task Force Eagle; and Charlie

Company, Task Force Eagle, conducted

a combined medical assistance and

humanitarian assistance mission. By

giving supplies such as shoes, food,

and clothing and providing medical

attention, Afghan and American Soldiers

demonstrated the meaning of winning

the hearts and minds to the local

population and demonstrated the benefits of supporting the Afghanistan

government’s efforts to bring security

and stability to this area of the Paktika

Province.

While medical screenings were conducted and humanitarian assistance

packages were provided, ANA and

Charlie Company Soldiers provided inner

and outer rings of security. The key to

this mission was to ensure that the ANA

was the lead so the townspeople could

see the role their army played in improving their daily lives. Before setup

was finished, the townspeople started

filtering inside for medical screenings.

Symptoms such as burns, pink eye,

diarrhea, and skin infections were treated

by ANA doctors and Task Force Eagle

medics. Female medics and assistants

stood by to support the medical requirements of adult women and young

girls, while male medics treated adult

males in a separate room. More than 50

children came for medical treatment, and

with the assistance of two ANA medics,

no time was wasted—everyone was

treated. The medics worked nonstop and

had plenty of supplies on hand to treat

everyone who came for aid. As with the

ANA security lead, it was critical to have

the ANA doctors and medics present to

treat patients. Besides showing their lead

in the event, it allowed Task Force Eagle

medics an opportunity to train their

Afghan counterparts. An ANA doctor

remarked that a Medical Civil Affairs

Program (MEDCAP) is good for the ANA

and townspeople alike. It shows a close

relationship between the ANA and the

locals and that the American Soldiers are

here to help. Referral slips with the name

of the doctor and location of the new

government clinic were provided to

patients to demonstrate the Islamic

Republic of Afghanistan’s commitment

to improving their lives.

Another way Afghan and American

Soldiers helped win over the townspeople was to hand out everyday

supplies to the children and the adults.

An ANA and Task Force Eagle team

provided aid to more than 150 people in

desperate need of such supplies. Similar

to the combined medical assistance part

of the mission, the focus was to ensure

that the Afghan soldiers were seen

handing out the items alongside the

American Soldiers. Most of the items—

such as clothes, backpacks, shoes, pens,

pencils, and coats—were geared toward

the children. Many of them walked away

with bundles of items bigger than they

were. While the U.S. Army provided most

of the supplies, some of the materials

were donated by Soldiers’ family

members. Adults were provided staples

such as rice, beans, flour, and blankets

for the cold winter ahead. The town

elders were pleased with the humanitarian assistance, because they realize

that some of their townspeople have very

little as the winter approaches. The

mission brought assistance to people

in need, and the hope is that Afghan

nationals and the government of

Winning Hearts and

Minds – Eagle Style

By Captain Becky L. Lapidow

A Task Force Eagle Soldier helps local children carry supplies received from

the humanitarian assistance mission.

Photo by Captain Becky Lapidow
36 Engineer January-March 2007

Afghanistan will be able to help themselves for the long term. This is also

why it is so important to have the ANA

involved in these operations—to

develop their ability to execute the

missions and provide future assistance

on their own.

In addition to winning the hearts and

minds of the Afghan nationals, this

assistance mission helped build a

relationship with them so they’d be more

welcoming to Task Force Eagle engineers conducting road construction

near their town. This demonstrates an

important balance between building

needed roads and reaching out to the

public, showing the benefits of such

infrastructure. This mission was also an

opportunity for the Afghan and American

Soldiers to work together, proving that

coalition success requires working for

the common goal of rebuilding the nation

of Afghanistan. Just as important, the

Task Force Eagle Soldiers walked away

feeling that they made a difference in the

country of Afghanistan—illustrating

that the term “winning the hearts and

minds” is more than a meaningless catch

phrase.

Captain Lapidow is the Public Affairs

Officer for Headquarters and Headquarters

Company, 37th Engineer Battalion (Combat).

Previous assignments include executive

officer, platoon leader, and assistant S-1 for

the 37th Engineer Battalion. She has attended

the Engineer Officer Basic Course, Airborne

School, the NBC Defense course, and Jumpmaster School and has a bachelor’s in earth

and environmental sciences from Lehigh

University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

A Soldier helps fill a backpack for some local children.

stretch of highway and the consequences that await anyone who is not

vigilant.

On this particular night patrol, one of

the trail gun-trucks spots a tiny stretch

of cleverly concealed command wire and

notifies the operator of the patrol’s main

route clearance workhorse—a Buffalo, a

huge, truck-like armored vehicle—which

pulls up to an area just off the pavement

and goes to work. With a deft hand, an

engineer Soldier inside manipulates the

Buffalo’s robotic arm and investigates

the site. In a few minutes, he has

uncovered and disarmed the buried

munition, chalking up another success

in disrupting insurgent activities. An

explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) team

harmlessly detonates the IED before the

patrol continues on.

After more than eight hours outside

the wire, the patrol pulls back into their

motor pool. Dawn light is beginning to

filter in over the camp as the Soldiers

dismount and shed their body armor,

helmets, and gear. They show a reserved

satisfaction as they wrap up their duties

and head for their quarters.

In the finest engineer tradition, the

Reserve and the National Guard have

formed a tight professional bond that has

resulted in an impressive success record.

As of 1 February, the National Guard

unit conducted more than 800 route

clearance patrols, covered more than

100,000 kilometers of roadway, and uncovered more than 300 threats to assured

mobility. They know that each patrol is

one step forward in the ongoing fight to

bring stability and freedom to Iraq.

Staff Sergeant Durney is a member of the

Arkansas Army National Guard’s 119th

Mobile Public Affairs Detachment and is

currently on deployment with the 875th

Engineer Battalion in support of Operation

Iraqi Freedom. He began his career as a

Navy journalist in 1976 and rejoined the

military after a 25-year break in service. He

is an award winning photographer and a

private pilot. As a civilian, he is a public

affairs specialist with the Arkansas National

Guard Public Affairs Office and editor of the

Arkansas Minuteman quarterly magazine.

(“Reserve and National Guard,”

continued from page 24)

The Fort Hood Training Capabilities Website at <https://mdtt.hood.

army.mil/capability/main.html> is a single online entry point for III Corps and

Fort Hood’s Live Virtual and Constructive (LVC) and Joint, Interagency, and

Multinational (JIM) training capabilities. The site provides users with training

resource descriptions, scheduling instructions, and resources information

links to help match training requirements with Fort Hood’s vast array of

training resources. Fort Hood is one of the premier Army locations providing

Soldiers with a wide variety of realistic maneuver areas and live-fire training

ranges designed to support training at both the individual and collective

levels. Visit the Fort Hood Training Capabilities Website today, and learn

about training resources available to enhance your training mission.

The point of contact is <kristin.boyd@hood.army.mil> or call (254)

287-0574 or DSN 737-0574.

Fort Hood Training Capabilities Website

Photo by First Lieutenant Keith Mueling
January-March 2007 Engineer 37

T.

he joint engineer community continues to move forward

in the process of educating and preparing its officers

and noncommissioned officers for operations in the

joint environment. The Doctrine Training Working Group

(DTWG) of the Joint Operational Engineer Board (JOEB)

overwatches the combined efforts of its engineer centers of

excellence to fully develop the Joint Engineer Operations Course

(JEOC), formerly known as the Joint Engineer Officer Course.

The new course title provides a more accurate description of

the intent and content of the course. The JEOC is a two-phase

course designed to better prepare officers and selected senior

noncommissioned officers for duty on the joint engineer staff

of a joint task force (JTF). The distributed learning (dL) phase

is designed to be 40 to 48 hours and a prerequisite for

attendance of the resident phase, designed to be 32 to

40 hours.

Prompted by its own introspection (see Engineer, JanuaryMarch 2006, “Joint Engineer Officer Course,” page 17) and

guidance derived from the National Military Strategy,

Quadrennial Defense Review, and the Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff’s CJCS Vision for Joint Officer Development,

as well as from other sources, the joint engineer community

has firmly set its sights on developing engineers who are better

prepared and who can quickly immerse themselves into the

JTF and its ongoing campaign.

To date, there have been two JEOC pilots. The popularity

of the course has resulted in a continuing dialogue among the

joint engineer community on the course itself, as well as on

joint operations and its impact on the education of the engineer

force for the future. Enrollment queries occur regularly, in

particular from junior leaders wanting to enhance their

knowledge of joint engineer operations.

Course Concept

I

.

n October 2004, members of the JOEB-DTWG training

subworking group met at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri,

to discuss JEOC development. Officers at the senior

company grade and junior field grade levels were the target

audience, but it was expanded to include senior noncommissioned officers and government civilians who could

also serve in a JTF engineer billet. The concept of the course

was defined as follows: Understand and be able to integrate

engineer capabilities across the spectrum of operations to

ensure support of joint force commanders’ engineer

requirements and accomplishment of the joint mission. The

end state competencies that the student would possess upon

completion of the course were to—

 Describe joint operations, joint warfare, and the joint

planning system.

 Describe, comprehend, and apply joint engineer doctrine.

 Describe, comprehend, and apply joint engineer planning

using scenarios, historical examples, and case studies.

 Describe and comprehend service engineer capabilities and

unique requirements.

 Describe, comprehend, and apply the strengths, effects,

and basic doctrinal employment concepts of service

engineers.

 Describe, comprehend, and apply employment principles

for using service engineer capabilities to support joint and

service engineer requirements.

DTWG Determinations

T.

he United States Army Engineer School’s Directorate

of Training and Leader Development (DOTLD) tasked

its Training Integration Office to write the JEOC white

paper that was distributed in March 2005 for comments from

the field. Based on feedback, a formal JEOC presentation was

given to the JOEB-DTWG on 7 April 2005. The presentation

included a draft 160-hour course with an 80-hour dL phase

and an 80-hour resident phase. The resident phase focused

on the operational side of staff work and concentrated on a

capstone engineer exercise centered on crisis action planning.

The DTWG determined that although the students needed

to understand the operational environment where they worked,

they needed to focus more on execution and less on planning.

The resident phase length was relooked, with a target of

40 hours being the goal. All agreed that a resident phase was

crucial to enhance the educational opportunity of the junior

By Mr. Robert B. McFarland, Jr.

Joint Engineer Operations

Course
38 Engineer January-March 2007

members of the joint engineer community. The ability to interact

in a classroom environment, while focusing on issues and

exercises specific to the joint engineer community, would

provide an excellent opportunity to better understand each

other’s capabilities.

Training Developer’s Conference

F.

rom 31 August to 1 September 2005, DOTLD hosted a

training developer’s conference (TDC) with

27 representatives from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps,

Air Force, and other associated organizations. The attendees

were formed into three working groups to address issues

specific to their group:

 dL working group

 Resident phase working group

 Administrative working group

Each working group was assigned a senior advisor (a senior

lieutenant colonel or a colonel), and these senior advisors

were also the JEOC Executive Steering Committee.

On the second day, the Engineer School hosted a videoteleconference, with several of the combatant command

engineers (United States Central Command, United States

Southern Command, United States European Command, and

United States Pacific Command) attending and incorporating

their input into the course design. The end result of the TDC

was a proposed two-phase 80-hour course with a 48-hour dL

phase and a 32-hour resident phase. The decision was made

that Fort Leonard Wood would host the first pilot course in

June 2006.

Upon completion of the TDC, members of the working

groups—consisting of key personnel from the Joint Forces

Command, the Joint Staff J-4, the Air Force Institute of

Technology, the Civil Engineer Corps Officer School, and the

Marine Corps Headquarters—held monthly teleconference inprogress reviews (IPRs), providing lesson material and

pursuing funding. The results of the TDC were consolidated,

and the course concept was designed to meet the identified

requirements. The proposed concept was presented to the

JOEB at the next quarterly videoteleconference in November

2005. Coordination among the joint engineer community

resulted in the United States Army Corps of Engineers®

committing to provide funds for hiring two temporary

employees to develop the JEOC program of instruction and

associated lesson plans. The Joint Staff J-4 agreed to provide

funds to develop the dL phase courseware.

In December 2005, the JEOC web portal was developed by

the Directorate of Common Leader Training (DCLT) and a beta

test was conducted to determine accessibility throughout the

continental United States. A resident phase coordination IPR

was held at Fort Leonard Wood in January 2006, where the

TDC resident phase developer’s intent was further clarified.

This intent was then applied to the dL phase development to

create the module linkage between the two phases. Further

coordination with the Joint Forces Staff College, National

Defense University, resulted in the Purple Sunset concept

plan exercise becoming the primary source for driving the

resident phase practical exercises.

A key result of the TDC was the determination of seat

quotas. Upon returning from the conference, the Joint Staff

J-4 engineer representative queried the combatant commands

for their estimates of officers, senior noncommissioned

officers, and selected civilians within their commands and

component commands who would benefit from attending the

JEOC. These personnel were divided into three bands,

depending on their status and probability of participation with

a JTF engineer staff.

 Band 1 personnel were those assigned to a JTF, combatant

command, or component command.

 Band 2 personnel have a high probability of being tasked

to help stand up a JTF.

 Band 3 personnel are junior officers preparing to join a

prospective JTF headquarters and all others who would

benefit from the JEOC.

The decision was made to use Band 1 numbers to determine

seat quotas and keep with the original intent of having three

small groups of 15 students for a total class size of 45. The

total rollup for Band 1 was 174 personnel. This number

provided the developers with a base figure to determine that

an annual throughput of up to 174 personnel in 45-person

groups would equate to conducting three to four classes per

year. The personnel numbers were submitted by Service, and

these figures were used to determine seat percentages. The

Army received 21 seats (46 percent), the Air Force 16 seats

(36 percent), the Navy 7 seats (16 percent), and the Marine

Corps 1 seat (2 percent). The Army gave two of its seats to the

Marine Corps to ensure that each small group had

representation in it.

“The JEOC is a two-phase course designed to better prepare

officers and selected senior noncommissioned officers for duty

on the joint engineer staff of a joint task force”
January-March 2007 Engineer 39

Course Development

I

.

n January 2006, a JEOC Tiger Team consisting of DOTLD

and DCLT members was organized at Fort Leonard Wood

to kick off the development of the dL phase. The team

coordinated with the Joint Forces Staff College to use

approximately 10 hours of existing Joint Knowledge

Development Distribution Capability courseware in the first

and second modules of the dL phase. A weekly IPR was

established to coordinate the team effort. A SharePoint site

was established to exchange materials and discussion among

the team members, and DCLT assumed responsibility for

developing the Learning Management System (LMS) portal

for the JEOC dL phase. The decision was made to use

Blackboard as the LMS to host the dL phase and to open it to

the students in April.

Small-group facilitators for the resident phase were provided

by each of the Services. The goal was to provide a facilitator

(a senior major or a lieutenant colonel) who had served as a

key member of a JTF engineer staff. Ideally, the facilitator would

have served as a deputy JTF engineer or as a plans or

operations chief. Each Service identified one facilitator, and

they began to participate in the IPRs where they were assisted

in navigating the dL phase lessons in Blackboard and shown

some of the features that could assist them in corresponding

with their students. Additionally, the facilitators arrived four

days before the students and participated in a resident phase

train-up session with the Fort Leonard Wood development

team. The students were divided into three small groups. Each

facilitator was assigned a group and began the collaborative

process of assisting them as they progressed through the dL

phase and prepared for the resident phase.

Pilot Course 1

There were 53 students enrolled in the first JEOC pilot

course, conducted from April to June 2006, and 37 attended

the resident phase. All four Services were represented. The

student population also included four senior noncommissioned

officers and two government civilians. The students were

surveyed on each lesson during the dL phase and resident

phase. A final course after-action review was held upon

completion of the resident phase with the students, facilitators,

and course developers. Recommendations from the students

and facilitators were staffed and used to make updates and

changes to the lessons. The students felt the course was

important for their development, as well as that of their peers

and subordinates, and many commented that they wished they

had attended a course like this earlier in their careers.

Pilot Course 2

There were 83 students enrolled in the second JEOC pilot

course, conducted from October to December 2006, and

48 students attended the resident phase. The dL phase was

opened to the students in October, and the resident phase

was conducted at Fort Leonard Wood in December. Facilitator

selection and student notification were similar to the first pilot.

However, for the second pilot, five facilitators participated.

Additionally, the Joint Forces Command engineer representative attended and, in essence, provided a sixth

facilitator. This tag team approach appeared to work well, and

the facilitators recommended that it be used in future courses.

As with the first pilot, student feedback was positive and

enthusiastic.

The high level of interest within the joint engineer community resulted in the dL phase lessons from the second pilot

being placed on the Fort Leonard Wood engineer portal—the

JEOC Open Enrollment Course is open to anyone with an Army

Knowledge Online (AKO) account. Students without an

account are sponsored by others in the engineer community

who have one, but the new Defense Knowledge Online (DKO)

system is expected to help resolve this issue. This course

currently has 38 students.

Pilot Course 3

JEOC development continues through fiscal year 2007.

Through the cooperative efforts of the Joint Forces Command,

Engineer School, Air Force Institute of Technology, Civil

Engineer Corps Officer School, and Marine Corps

Headquarters, the third JEOC pilot is scheduled for April to

July 2007. The dL phase opens in April, and the resident phase

will occur at Fort Leonard Wood in July. Both the facilitator

and the student will be key players in ensuring the success of

the course, not only for their Service but for the entire joint

engineer community.

JEOC Graduates

Graduates of the JEOC pilot courses are followed for

one year after their attendance—through

surveys sent at 90, 180, and 365 days—to ensure

that the course content continues to be relevant in their

environment while serving in a JTF assignment. Although not

all JEOC graduates are assigned to a JTF, many are assigned

to combatant command staffs or serve with a service component staff in support of a joint force commander, and they

also provide the JEOC development team with valuable

feedback.

Mr. Robert McFarland is a contractor with C2

Technologies, Inc. and works in the Training Integration

Office, Directorate of Training and Leader Development,

United States Army Engineer School. A retired Army

lieutenant colonel and a former battalion commander, he is

a graduate of the Command and General Staff College and

the School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS). He is the

project manager for developing the Joint Engineer

Operations Course, along with other ongoing initiatives at

the Engineer School.
of graduate credit during the 20-week career course. The

shared-credit courses are as follows:

 Engineering Management 313, Managerial Decision

Making

 Engineering Management 314, Management for Engineers

and Scientists

 Civil Engineering 345, Construction Methods

 Civil Engineering 442, Construction Administration,

Planning, and Control

Upon completing these courses, students in engineering

management, civil engineering, and environmental engineering

receive a graduate certificate in military construction management. Public policy and geological engineering students earn

12 credits, but not a certificate.

Master’s Degree

Completion of the graduate certificate in military construction management with a grade of B or higher in each

course enables students to enter the master’s program in engineering management without taking the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), provided they meet the normal requirements for

their undergraduate degree field and cumulative grade point

average. Students entering the master’s program in the other

fields are still required to take the GRE. Once admitted, students

then complete the remaining six courses in one equivalent

semester. The format of those remaining courses varies,

depending on the program.

In engineering management, which is the most popular

option, the courses are either taught in two 8-week compressed

sessions at Fort Leonard Wood, or on the UMR campus in the

normal 16-week semester. The determining factor is the

alignment of the Captain’s Career Course with the standard

UMR semesters. There are four career course groups spread

throughout each year, and typically two of them dovetail with

the UMR semesters, and two do not. In the first case, students

take the remaining courses on the UMR campus with the normal

assembly of graduate students. In the latter case, engineering

management instructors teach the remaining six courses

exclusively to the officers at Fort Leonard Wood in two

8-week sessions. Civil engineering is only offered twice per

year to those in career course classes that line up with the

40 Engineer January-March 2007

A cooperative degree program between the University

of Missouri-Rolla and the United States Army

Engineer School at Fort Leonard Wood leads to a

graduate certificate in military construction management

and to a master of science degree in engineering management,

civil engineering, geological engineering, or public policy

for officers in the Captain’s Career Course.

I

.

n 1994, the University of Missouri-Rolla (UMR) and the

United States Army Engineer School began a program of

intensive study taught by UMR faculty at Fort Leonard

Wood that allowed officers attending the Captain’s Career

Course to earn university graduate credit leading to a certificate

in military construction management and then to a master’s

degree in engineering management. The program was

established with a special tuition rate that makes it quite

competitive and affordable. The first group of students

completed this program in the spring semester of 1995, and

since its inception, 881 officers have successfully completed

their master’s in engineering management through this

program.

With the success of the program in engineering management, other degree programs were added in civil engineering,

geological engineering, environmental engineering, and public

policy. The program in public policy is supported by faculty

from the Public Policy Administration Department at the

University of Missouri-St. Louis (UMSL). Engineering

management has been the most popular program by far, but all

of the programs have been successful. The Fort Leonard Wood

program is supported on-site by two UMR staff members to

facilitate matriculation and completion of the program. All of

the UMR programs are integrated into the Army’s new webbased tuition assistance program GoArmyEd at <http://

GoArmyEd.com>.

Program Structure

Military Construction Management Certificate

All officers entering the Captain’s Career Course complete

a core of four shared-credit courses that are a combination of

instruction provided by Engineer School instructors and UMR

faculty. Each course is worth 3 semester hours of graduate

credit, resulting in the student accumulating 12 semester hours

Cooperative Graduate Degree Program

at Fort Leonard Wood

By Dr. William J. Daughton
 Appendix J – Engineer Field Manuals and Related Joint

Publications

Additionally, the December council recommended that two

overarching themes guide the development of this revision:

 Primacy of the Warfighting Functions

- Leverage engineer links to the warfighting functions to

define the Regiment.

- Adopt warfighting functions as our common language.

 Criticality of Engineer Command and Control and Staff

Integration

- Include functional and multifunctional command and

control structures.

- Emphasize engineer staff participation at all levels (to

include sustainment-type units). Define doctrinal

requirements, even if specific engineer staff and command and control structure doesn’t currently exist

organically at the proper locations in the force.

- Broaden the description of engineer staff responsibilities to include new roles and selected

historical roles that have not been focused on in the

past.

Production and Publication

T.

he writing team is currently preparing the first draft

(author draft), which will be completed in time for a

presentation and discussion during ENFORCE 2007.

Based on the guidance from the review of this document and

this meeting, a second draft (initial draft) will be completed in

June 2007. The initial draft will be sent out for Armywide

staffing, to include a focused review within the Regiment. After

the comments from that staffing are received and adjudicated,

a final draft will be prepared in time for a final Council of Colonels

in late 2007. Other working group actions and council dates

will be developed as necessary to support the production of

the manual for the Regiment. The publication of this latest

version of FM 3-34 is projected for fall 2008. Your participation

is necessary to help make this 21st edition of the Regiment’s

keystone manual relevant and used by all leaders in the

Regiment and the Army.

Lieutenant Colonel Lefler is the Chief of the Doctrine

Development Division at the United States Army Engineer

School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He is a registered

professional engineer in Nebraska and a Project Management

Professional.

Lieutenant Colonel Supplee (Retired) is a senior military

analyst with the Army Program Office of Advancia

Corporation, based in St. Robert, Missouri. His last active

duty assignment was as the Operations Branch Chief for the

Office of the Chief of Engineers at the Pentagon.

UMR semesters; public policy courses are taught at Fort

Leonard Wood only; and the geological engineering courses

are taught on the UMR campus.

Program Feedback

T.

he overall feedback from the participants is positive;

they cite this cooperative program as an excellent way

to earn a master’s in an otherwise busy time. In

particular, the UMR support staff on-site receive positive

feedback for their helpfulness, easy availability, and positive

attitude. The program also draws high praise from the

participating faculty as well. Most faculty members view the

officers as very motivated and engaged students, and they

consider it a pleasure to teach them. The faculty members

describe these students as among the very best graduate

students they encounter. This creates a winning combination

and contributes to a very productive and exciting learning

environment.

The Future

Both UMR and the Engineer School consider this

program to be very valuable. For UMR, the program

represents an important extension activity in fulfilling

its mission to provide outstanding engineering education in

the state. The Engineer School values the opportunity to

engage a highly rated university in a cooperative program

that has real benefit for its officers. Representatives of both

groups continue to meet to discuss how the program is working

and seek ways to improve it. One of the more recent improvements has been the introduction of an option to complete

the degree program remotely. With the continuing growth of

the distance education capability at UMR, the option now

exists for officers to complete the master’s program at a distance

if they are required to leave before completing all of the

courses. As communication technology continues to advance,

this option will get easier to use regardless of the officers’

location.

Questions about this program may be addressed to

Lahne Black at 573-341-4410 or at <lahne@umr.edu>.

Dr. Daughton is a professor and department chair of the

Engineering Management and Systems Engineering

Department at the University of Missouri-Rolla. He holds a

debriefing session with each class that completes the

program.

(“Keystone Manual,” continued from page 6)

January-March 2007 Engineer 41
42 Engineer January-March 2007

I

.

n addition to its Officer Corps and Noncommissioned

Officer Corps, there is now a new corps in the Army

family—the Army Civilian Corps. The establishment of

this corps was announced to Army personnel in a 19 June

2006 memorandum signed by General Peter J. Schoomaker,

then Chief of Staff of the Army, and Dr. Francis J. Harvey,

then Secretary of the Army.1 In the memorandum, they stated

that Army civilians have a 230-year record of service and are

extremely critical to the total Army force structure. Army

Civilian Corps is a fitting title for this group of people; the

name helps unify the Army civilian service and exemplifies

the commitment of these dedicated individuals.

The memorandum further stated that Army civilians

serve in all theaters and are deployed throughout the world

in support of the Army’s missions, to include the Global

War on Terrorism. Not only do they assist with many of the

reconstruction projects in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Army

civilians are also being recruited to fill other positions to

support the war.2

 And here at home, they help train Soldiers

for deployment and maintain the facilities while the Soldiers

are away, defending our country. As the missions have

evolved and become more complex, so have the roles of

Army civilians. In addition, the stability and continuity that

the civilians provide is invaluable in keeping the Army at a

high state of readiness.

Like their uniformed counterparts, Army civilians are

committed to selfless service in the performance of their duties.

This is illustrated in the Army Civilian Corps Creed,3 which

defines the purpose and role of Army civilian employees (see

Figure 1).

Army Civilian Corps Creation

T.

he creation of the Army Civilian Corps resulted from a

study conducted from August 2001 through February

2003 by the Army Training and Leadership

Development Panel (ATLDP).4 Through this study (which

involved 40,000 civilians, using written and online surveys,

focus-group sessions, and personal interviews), the panel of

senior civilian and military subject matter experts were able to

determine the needs and concerns of Army civilians.

One thing that the study revealed was that Army civilians

were not being adequately trained for leadership roles. “The

Army grows and develops the best Soldiers in the world—

and trains them to be leaders. However, growing Army civilian

leaders has fallen short of that requirement.”5 As the Army

transforms, the reliance on the civilian workforce will increase.

Army civilian leaders of the 21st century must be welltrained so they can support our Soldiers to their fullest

potential. They must be pentathlete leaders—multiskilled

strategic and creative thinkers who can build leaders and teams.

Figure 2 shows the skills and attributes6 needed to become

pentathlete civilian leaders who personify the Warrior Ethos

in all aspects, from warfighting support, to statesmanship, to

business management.7

Civilian Education System

T.

he ATLDP recommended four “imperatives” designed

to help develop Army civilians and grow leaders:

accountability, lifelong learning, interpersonal skills,

and Army culture.8 “Like their uniformed counterparts, Army

By Ms. Karin Gan

Figure 1

 I am an Army Civilian – a member of the Army

Team

 I am dedicated to our Army, our Soldiers, and

Civilians

 I will always support the mission

 I provide stability and continuity during war

and peace

 I support and defend the Constitution of the

United States and consider it an honor to

serve our Nation and our Army

 I live the Army values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect,

Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal

Courage

 I am an Army Civilian

Army Civilian Corps Creed
January-March 2007 Engineer 43

civilians must be well-developed, motivated, and forwardthinking to meet the challenges of the 21st century.”9

 They

“require a leader development education structure parallel to

that of their uniformed counterparts.”10

Toward that end, a new Civilian Education System (CES) is

being developed and staffed with the major commands.

Phase 1 began in January 2007; additional phases will begin

as the CES program develops.11

 The CES plan includes four courses that are sequential

and progressive:12

 Foundation Course (FC). This course is for civilians

entering the Army with various levels of previous

experience. It is entirely distributed learning (dL). Students

will learn to understand and appreciate Army values and

customs, serve professionally as a member of the

Department of the Army, acquire foundation competencies

for leader development, develop effective communication

skills, and be ready to assume a first leadership role.

 Basic Course (BC). This course is for leaders who exercise

direct leadership to effectively lead a team. It will be a

combination of dL and a 2-week resident phase at the

Army Management Staff College (AMSC) Fort

Leavenworth, Kansas, campus. Students will understand

and apply basic leadership skills to effectively lead and

care for small teams, apply effective communication skills,

and develop and mentor subordinates.

 Intermediate Course (IC). This course is for leaders who

exercise direct and indirect supervision. It is a combination

of dL and a 3-week resident phase at either the AMSC

Fort Leavenworth or Fort Belvoir, Virginia, campus.

Students learn skills to manage human and financial

resources, direct program management and systems

integration, display flexibility and resilience, and focus on

the mission.

 Advanced Course (AC). This course is for leaders who

exercise predominately indirect supervision. It is a

combination of dL and a 4-week resident phase at the

AMSC Fort Belvoir campus. Students become skilled in

leading a complex organization, managing human and

financial resources, leading change, inspiring vision and

creativity, directing program management and systems

integration, displaying flexibility and resilience, and

focusing on the mission.

Legacy leader development courses such as Leadership

Education and Development (LEAD), Leadership Education

and Development Train the Trainer (LEAD TTT), Organizational Leadership for Executives (OLE), Personnel

Management for Executives (PME) I and II, Strategic Leadership Education (SLE), and Sustaining Base Leadership and

Management (SBLM) have been phased out and will be

replaced by, or incorporated into, the four CES courses.13

Information on dates and location of the classes will be posted

on the AMSC website at <http://www.amsc.belvoir.army.mil/

ces/> and in the Civilian Leader Development Transformation

Community on Army Knowledge Online (AKO).14

Another result of the panel was the November 2004

establishment of the Civilian Advisory Board.15 The purpose

of this board is to—

 Provide the Chief of Staff, Army, and his staff with

professional advice and assistance in matters pertaining

to the civilian work force.

 Serve as a representative and advocate for Army civilians

in matters raised to the Chief of Staff, Army.

Figure 2

– Sets the standard for

integrity and character

– Confident and competent

decision maker in uncertain

situations:

 Prudent risk taker

 Innovative

 Adaptive

– Empathetic and always

positive

– Professionally educated

and dedicated to lifelong

learning

– Effective communicator

Personifies the

Warrior Ethos in all

aspects, from warfighting

to statesmanship to

business management...

It’s a way of life.

Multiskilled Leader Leader Attributes

– Strategic and creative thinker

– Builder of leaders and teams

– Competent full-spectrum

warfighter or accomplished

professional who supports

the Soldier

– Effective in managing,

leading, and changing

large organizations

– Skilled in governance,

statesmanship, and diplomacy

– Understands cultural

context, and works

effectively across it

st
44 Engineer January-March 2007

 Strengthen the bonds between uniformed and civilian

members of the Army.

 Highlight the importance of keeping Army civilian workforce issues integrated into the Army planning process.

Advance training and leader development to the forefront

of Army priorities.

Conclusion

According to former Chief of Staff of the Army

Schoomaker and former Secretary of the Army

Harvey, Army civilian employees of yesterday,

today, and tomorrow are—and will remain—an integral part

of the Army team. They have earned this distinction because

of their vital service to the Nation and the Army.16 To support

our Soldiers as they carry out the Army’s missions, the

Army Civilian Corps, too, must be Army Strong.

Ms. Gan is the lead editor for the Publications Production

Division, Directorate of Training and Leader Development,

United States Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood,

Missouri. Her previous experience includes sixteen years

working in civilian personnel. She is a graduate of Southwest

Missouri State University (now Missouri State University),

Springfield, Missouri.

Endnotes

1

 Department of the Army Memorandum, “The Army Civilian Corps,”

19 June 2006, <www.cpol.army.mil>, under Top Army Initiatives,

Army Civilian Corps Established, click on Memo, accessed on

14 February 2007.

2

 Army Civilian Personnel Online (CPOL), “Support the Global

War on Terrorism,” <www.cpol.army.mil>, click on Employment then

Global War on Terrorism, accessed on 14 February 2007.

3

 Army CPOL, “Army Civilian Corps Creed,” <http://cpol.army.mil/

library/general/acccreed.html>, accessed on 14 February 2007.

4 “The Army Training and Leader Development Panel Report, Phase

IV (Civilian Study),” 24 February 2003, <http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/

awcgate/army/atld-panel/civ_report.pdf>, accessed on 14 February

2007.

5

 Ibid.

6

 Secretary of the Army, speech given at the Association of the United

States Army convention, Washington, D.C., 9 October 2006.

7

 DAMO-TR Message, “Change 1: Emphasize Importance of Civilian

Education System Course Enrollment,” 16 January 2007.

8

 The ATLDP Report.

9

 John Plifka, “Civilian Education System Leader Development

Program (CES LDP),” AMSC News, Volume 1, Issue 1, 17 November

2006, page 7.

10 Ibid.

11 DAMO-TR, “Civilian Education System Policy,” memorandum,

22 November 2006.

12 Army Management Staff College, “Civilian Education System –

Transforming Leaders Through Education,” <http://www.amsc.

belvoir.army.mil/ces/>, accessed on 14 February 2007.

13 Department of the Army (Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff,

G-1), “Transforming Civilian Leader Development,” memorandum,

26 May 2006.

14 AKO Civilian Leader Development Transformation Community.

At the AKO homepage, choose the Site Map tab, then Army

Organizations, then Operations (view related content), which will give

you a pull-down menu. Choose Pages and Groups, which will give you

another pull-down menu. Choose Leader Development (view related

content), which will give you a pull-down menu. Choose Pages and

Groups, which will give you another pull-down menu, then choose

Civilian Leader Development, accessed on 16 February 2007.

15 Department of the Army, “Civilian Advisory Board (CAB),”

memorandum, 14 December 2004.

16 Department of the Army Memorandum, 19 June 2006.

References

Army Civilian Corps Handbook (2006), <http://www.pba.army.mil/

Right%20Column/handbook%202.pdf>, accessed on 27 February

2007.

Department of the Army (Deputy Chief of Staff G-3/5/7), “Army

Civilian Education System Policy,” November 2006.

Manpower and Force Management (CP 26), Army Civilian Education

System, Policy, November 2006, <http://www.cp26.army.mil/training/

ces.cfm>, accessed on 14 February 2007.

Field Manual 6-22, Army Leadership, 12 October 2006.

Andricka Hammonds, “Army Civilian Corps Established,” Army News

Service, 12 July 2006.

Bob Brewin, “Army Secretary Encourages Job Shifts,” 18 September

2006.

Personal Observations

Growing up as an “Army brat,” I learned from my

father a deep respect for my country, the American

Flag, and the United States Army. I began my civil

service career straight out of high school as a Federal

Junior Fellow, GS-2, in the Civilian Personnel Office at

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. During the time I was

completing my college degree, I was very lucky to have

supervisors and mentors in the Civilian Personnel Office

who personified and enforced in me the importance of

my responsibilities as an Army civilian and of giving

100 percent while performing quality work.

The Army Civilian Corps Creed should be a reminder

to civilian employees that our purpose is to serve and

support—our country, our Army, and our Soldiers. We

made that choice when we decided to work in the public

sector rather than in the private sector. And we are truly

fortunate to have that opportunity. Take a moment to

study the creed. Most will find that not only do we practice

these beliefs, we also understand and support them.

Although there will always be some Army civilians who

fail to live up to their commitment and, as a result, cause

all of us to be viewed negatively by some Soldiers, they

are far outnumbered by the many who strive to support

the Army’s mission and to protect our country and

our Constitution. Most of us take pride in being part of

the Army Civilian Corps and look forward to transforming

with this great Army team.
January-March 2007 Engineer 45

W.

hile cold weather and freezing temperatures may

stop the Taliban, harsh conditions don’t stop Task

Force Eagle. These Soldiers are committed to

building roads to help the people of the Islamic Republic of

Afghanistan. Although at times the ground is freezing and

road construction is limited because of the bad weather, the

local nationals of Afghanistan and American Soldiers continue

their work when the weather permits because they know that

By Captain Becky L. Lapidow

accomplishing this mission will benefit many. They use four

different types of equipment, including a dozer to cut the

ditches and push fill onto the road, a sheep’s foot roller to

break up frozen dirt and start compaction on the 18 to 24 inches

of fill, a smooth-wheel roller to finish the soil and compact the

gravel, and a grader to cut the final grade on the road and

spread the gravel.

First, snow is removed from the existing area far enough for

two days of work. Then, dozers are

used to rip up the frozen ground in small

increments. Workers are careful not to

rip open too much earth in case snow

falls overnight and fills the holes with

frost and moisture. The dozers then

push fill material into the existing road

and push frozen and dry material onto

the road. The sheep’s foot roller is then

used to roll over the material to break

up the frozen chunks of dirt and mix

the dry and frozen material together.

After a base course (the subbase layer

of an asphalt roadway) is compacted,

the grader is rolled over it to ensure

that the road is even. The smooth-wheel

roller is used to compact the top 4 to 6

inches of road.

The next day, the top 2 inches of

the road are final-graded, and 3 inches

of well-graded #5 gravel are spread,

graded, and compacted once more.

While this is being done, other

Photo by Sergeant First Class Mark Ferron, Task Force Eagle

(Continued on page 49)

A high-speed compactor breaks up frozen chunks of soil and compacts it to

strengthen the subbase.

Photo by Sergeant First Class Mark Ferron, Task Force Eagle
46 Engineer January-March 2007

Kwajalein Atoll, the largest coral atoll in the world, is

part of the Republic of the Marshall Islands in the

western Pacific Ocean. Since 1944, when the United

States captured the atoll from the Japanese, it has been used

for military purposes. Unaccompanied personnel who are

assigned there live in apartment-style housing. When one of

these buildings (Building 708) was determined to be unsafe

for occupancy, plans were made to implode the building to

make way for a new structure.

The project, which was accomplished in July 2006, took

place in two phases: an explosive demolition conducted by

the 7th Engineer Dive Team, 29th Engineer Battalion, and a

mechanical demolition and debris removal conducted by

the 82d Engineer Company (Engineer Support Company [ESC]).

The dive team detonated 84 pounds of M1 dynamite, bringing

the three-story, 450-foot-long building to the ground.

Imploding the building facilitated the mechanical demolition

by reducing the height of the structure by at least half and

catastrophically damaging the entire structure. A blast of this

type had never been performed with military explosives and

required extensive research and planning.

Preparation

F.

rom March through June, Kwajalein Range Services

(KRS) conducted soft demolition of the building, which

included removing all glass, interior walls, paint,

electrical wires, plumbing, fixtures, and furniture. KRS also

installed window barricades on surrounding buildings to

protect against glass breakage, but did not remove the

building’s four stairwells, each of which went to the third floor

and was surrounded by secondary columns and concrete

masonry unit (CMU) walls. While not designed to be load

bearing beyond the limits of the stairwells, these columns and

walls were strong enough to withstand a substantial load.

With the time allowed, the 82d Engineer Company was able to

remove three of the four stairwells on the first floor.

By Captain Charles T. Denike

Glass and other interior components were removed from Building 708 in preparation for the

implosion.
January-March 2007 Engineer 47

Demolition

T.

he blast team placed the M1 charges inside the columns

surrounding the stairwells. To do so, they drilled

boreholes 1.375 inches in diameter and 13 inches deep

at elevations of 2 and 6 feet into the north faces of each column

to protect the M11 blasting caps from fragmentation. After

drilling the boreholes, the blast team and KRS installed a chainlink fence and a nonwoven geotextile fabric curtain around

the south, west, and north sides of the first floor.

The blast team conducted a test shot on 6 July to verify the

charge quantity and placement. The M1 dynamite completely

breached the column at the charge placements. The remaining

concrete at an elevation of 4 feet was severely displaced, and

the rebar was deformed. The chain-link fence and nonwoven

geotextile fabric wrap remained intact. The test shot confirmed

the proposed plan, and the blast team loaded the structure

with explosives for the blast.

The team primed 168 charges, loaded them in the boreholes,

and stemmed the boreholes with expanding foam. They

wrapped all 84 columns with two layers of chain-link fence

and nonwoven geotextile fabric to contain fragmentation. On

each column, the chain-link fence was secured with four hog

rings and the nonwoven geotextile fabric was secured with

three wire ties. Four M15 high- and low-strength time delay

blasting caps (two primary and two secondary systems) were

used, and two M11 high-strength blasting caps were used to

create the 225 milliseconds delay between each of the eleven

sequences that detonated consecutively from the south to

the north end of the building. The net explosive weight (NEW)

of each sequence was 8.92 pounds and the total NEW for all

sequences was 94.45 pounds. Since the sequences were

delayed 225 milliseconds (more than the industry standard of

8 milliseconds), the entire blast was modeled with a NEW of

8.92 pounds. The blast was initiated with two M81 igniters

(primary and secondary) and two M13 (1,000-foot) lowstrength blasting caps.

The blast collapsed the entire first floor, 75 percent of the

second floor, and 50 percent of the third floor. The final stairwell

that was unable to be removed on the first floor supported

some of the structure during the collapse. Portions of the

second and third floor remained supported since the stairwells

had not been removed above the first floor.

Quantity-Distances

T.

he most significant deviation from normal military

explosive procedures was the use of reduced safe

distances. The blast team used a distance of 681 feet

for the blast (both the test shot and the entire building) and

200 feet for accidental detonations. The quantity-distance was

calculated using the equation:

D (ft) = K x W1/3

D is the distance in feet, K is a factor (also called K-factor) that

is dependent on the permitted risk level, and W is NEW in

Each column was wrapped with two layers of

chain-link fence and nonwoven geotextile

fabric to contain fragmentation.

pounds. For accidental detonations, a K-factor of 401 is

normally used; however, this distance does not account for

fragmentation. Therefore, a distance of 200 feet was used for

accidental detonations. For intentional detonations, a K-factor

of 3282 was used, representing an incident overpressure of

0.0655 pounds per square inch at the calculated distance. This

resulted in a distance of 681 feet and accounted for the dangers

of overpressure. There was no concern of fragmentation

because control measures were in place to limit the distance

that fragmentation was thrown.

Blast Considerations

Concerns about fragmentation included the distance of

flying debris, damage to neighboring buildings, and

damage to initiation systems. The fragmentation could

have caused window breakage in neighboring buildings and

severed the sequences. Fragmentation was mitigated using

three methods:

 Using protective materials at the charge placement. Each

column was wrapped with two layers of chain-link fence

and two layers of nonwoven geotextile fabric that reduced

the number of fragments projected from the column and

their speed. The wrap contained 95 percent of the

fragmentation on the test shot column. Additionally, the
48 Engineer January-March 2007

The builidng was reduced by at least half by the blast.

maximum fragment throw distance for the remaining

5 percent was 20 feet.

 Covering the first floor openings on the south and west

sides, two pedestrian doors on the north side, and the first

60 feet of the east side from the north with a chain-link

fence curtain and nonwoven geotextile fabric. The fence

was secured at the top, but allowed to hang free at the

bottom. The fabric was 15 feet high, providing enough

fabric lying on the ground to secure with sandbags once

installed over the fence. The fabric had enough slack to

allow it to move if impacted by fragmentation and decelerate

the fragment instead of allowing the fragment to pierce the

fabric.

 Covering all exposed initiation system components inside

the building with two layers of sandbags. This significantly

reduced the chance of misfires due to components being

severed from flying debris. After analyzing the results of

the blast, the team thought that a single sandbag layer

covering the detonation cord and a double sandbag layer

over the initiator components would have been sufficient.

Covering the detonation cord with sandbags also provided

suppression of blast overpressure since the detonation

cord was exploding in free air lying on the building floor.

KRS installed 3/4-inch plywood barricades over windows

and air conditioning units in close proximity and facing the

building to protect against flying debris and constructed a

barricade around a nearby building.

Since the charges were positioned inside the columns, blast

overpressure was not a major concern. The amount of

explosives used per charge was the minimum amount needed

to achieve the desired blast results. The majority of energy of

the blast overpressure was directed within the borehole,

resulting in breaching of the column. Once the column was

breached, there was minimal overpressure remaining to impact

surrounding structures or personnel.

Ground shock was negligible due to the coral substrate,

height of the structure, and amount of explosives used. It is

common practice to measure vibration at surrounding

buildings using a seismograph; however, the blast team did

not have equipment to support this. For future operations,

this might be added for research and training value. For a

larger structure, seismographic measurements would be a

requirement.

“Great strides were achieved while

planning for the implosion-style blast

in a confined urban environment...”
January-March 2007 Engineer 49

Conclusion

Building 708 detonated and collapsed as planned, with

no damage to surrounding structures. The sequences

detonated from south to north to control the fall of the

structure away from nearby buildings—the building

successfully fell down onto its own foundation. Portions of

the building between the second and third floor stairwells that

remained intact went into complete progressive collapse,

showing the significance of leaving those stairwells in place.

This result was acceptable since reducing the structure height

by one floor brought the entire structure within reach of the

hydraulic excavators for mechanical demolition. However,

removing the stairwells on the second and third floors would

have caused the building to completely collapse and should

be pursued on future operations.

Great strides were achieved while planning for the

implosion-style blast in a confined urban environment since it

required nonregulation minimum distances and used

nonstandard methods for employing military explosives. This

experience was an invaluable training opportunity and

demonstrated greatly expanded capabilities of military

explosives for future operations.

Captain Denike is the plans officer for the 29th Engineer

Battalion, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. Previous assignments

include executive officer for the 7th Engineer Dive Team,

29th Engineer Battalion, and diving officer student at Delta

Company, 577th Engineer Battalion, Panama City, Florida.

He holds a bachelor’s in mechanical engineering from the

University of Virginia.

Endnote

1

Department of Defense Directive 6055.9, DoD Explosives

Safety Board (DDESB) and DoD Component Explosives

Safety Responsibilities, 29 July 1996.

2

Ibid.

Note: The techniques and procedures presented in this

document are the opinion of the author and other personnel

consulted for endorsement due to their technical background

and expertise. Adherence to these techniques and procedures

provided an acceptable level of safety; however, they don’t

guarantee a risk-free operation or address every possible

situation that occurred. The blast team was responsible for

addressing unexpected conditions based on technical

knowledge. The use of explosives to collapse the building

was inherently dangerous, but extensive control measures

were followed to conduct the operation safely.

Soldiers grade and compact the ditches along the side and

complete the finish work. This process may sound easy,

but when the top 12 inches of road are frozen, it is not a

simple task.

The road that Task Force Eagle is working on is important

to the local population for many reasons. First of all, it connects

towns (over a 100-kilometer stretch) that were previously

isolated from one another. This has significant economic

impacts because these towns can now trade and export among

each other. The road allows the small village governments to

communicate and become a stronger government. The road

also impacts education and health care because it is now easier

to get to school or see a doctor when needed. But most importantly, Afghan local nationals are helping with the project

by providing gravel, fuel, and water used in construction, which

creates jobs for the local populace. In turn, the Afghan workers

learn how to care and maintain the roads themselves, helping

to make them autonomous once coalition forces leave the

country.

This is why Afghan local nationals and Task Force Eagle

Soldiers, although facing harsh and at times impossible

conditions, continue their construction efforts. Afghanistan

needs the benefits of roads, no matter what the season.

Afghan workers and coalition forces understand this and

will continue building this road until their project is

completed.

Captain Lapidow is the Public Affairs Officer for Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 37th Engineer

Battalion (Combat). Previous assignments include executive

officer, platoon leader, and assistant S-1 for the 37th Engineer

Battalion. She has attended the Engineer Officer Basic

Course, Airborne School, the NBC Defense course, and

Jumpmaster School and holds a bachelor’s in earth and

environmental sciences from Lehigh University, Bethlehem,

Pennsylvania.

After graders smooth the road and create ditches, the

smooth-wheel roller compacts the dirt.

Photo by First Lieutenant Keith Muehling, Task Force Eagle

(“Road Construction,” continued from page 45)
50 Engineer January-March 2007

F.

elix Novelli was 19 years old when

he was assigned to the USS

Intrepid during World War II. He

clearly remembers the horror and

splendor he experienced while onboard

the aircraft carrier, including the first

attack.

“I was standing on the flight deck

when a twin-engine Japanese divebomber attacked from the fantail. He

came along the starboard side when one

of our guns hit him, blowing his wing off

and sending it into the ship, causing a

very bad fire,” said Novelli, who saw

many of his “brothers” being killed and

wounded.

Novelli witnessed numerous attacks

during the war, to include many kamikaze

attacks that blackened the sky. They

kept on coming from the left and the

right, 200 to 300 each day, trying to sink

the Intrepid. She was hit five times by

kamikaze bombers.

In addition to its World War II service,

the 925-foot-long ship saw action in the

Korean and Vietnam conflicts. “The

Ghost Ship,” as she was known by the

enemy, tracked Soviet submarines during

the Cold War and served as the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration’s

prime recovery vessel for Mercury and

Gemini capsules in the 1960s.

In 1981, the aircraft carrier was saved

from being scrapped when it was

purchased by the Intrepid Foundation,

a charitable organization started by the

New York City-based Fisher construction and real estate family. The

USACE-Navy Team Frees the USS Intrepid

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

The USS Intrepid docked at Pier 86 on the Hudson River on Manhattan’s

west side.

Photo by Peter Shugert, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District

Photo by Peter Shugert, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District
January-March 2007 Engineer 51

foundation, through its Fallen Heroes

Fund, the Center for the Intrepid, and

Fisher Houses, responds to the hardships of military service and meets a

humanitarian need beyond that normally

provided by the Department of Defense.

Fisher Houses are located at military

hospitals worldwide and provide

assistance to the families of critically

injured servicemen and servicewomen.

Novelli, who also supports these

programs, says that every time a Fisher

House is opened, American flags are

raised from the Intrepid flight deck and

then presented to the Fisher House at a

ceremony.

In 1982, the retired warship became

the Intrepid Sea, Air, and Space Museum.

It is the world’s largest naval museum

and has been berthed at Pier 86 on

Manhattan Island in the Hudson River.

After 24 years as a museum, officials of

the Intrepid Foundation decided that the

ship needed repairs and refurbishment,

as well as a rebuilt public pier to serve

the 700,000 visitors each year.

In August 2006, the museum received

a federal permit from the United States

Army Corps of Engineers® (USACE) to

dredge an access channel from the

berthing area to the main federal channel

of the Hudson River to move the vessel

to Bayonne, New Jersey, where it would

undergo inspection and necessary

repairs. The dredging operation, which

was completed in October, removed

approximately 16,000 cubic yards of

river mud.

On 6 November 2006, an “Intrepid on

Leave” celebration was conducted by

Intrepid Foundation officials to give the

ship an elaborate send-off to its

temporary home. Several public service

agencies’ vessels were invited to escort

the ship downriver, with four USACE

workboats leading the flotilla. During

this initial attempt to remove the

engineless ship, seven tugboats began

to pull, and the Intrepid literally got stuck

in the mud.

The 27,100-ton ship moved backward,

stern first, about 15 feet before its four

giant propellers, each measuring 16 feet

in diameter, dug into the river sediment

and prevented any further movement.

Try as the straining tugboats might, the

Intrepid would not budge. The effect was

a compacted “speed bump” of mud under

the ship’s fantail (see figure below).

Museum officials immediately called

numerous government agencies for help,

including Pentagon officials. The

USACE New York District, the closest

federal agency with expertise, responded

within 2 hours with its district commander and technical experts on the

adjacent pier assessing the situation.

 The stern of the ship was 2 feet higher

than the bow. At low tide, the ship was

only resting on the bow and the stern’s

speed bump. This was adding serious

stress to the hull, according to the

District Chief of Operations. This was

not a simple matter of more dredging, but

USACE vessels Gelberman and Hayward lead the flotilla as the USS Intrepid

is towed stern first down the New York Harbor, en route to its temporary dock in

Bayonne, New Jersey.

Photo by Peter Shugert, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District

30 ft.

Dredged

Driveway

Stern

USS Intrepid

River Bottom

Propellers

17-foot mud mound

speed bump

The Challenge:

In the initial attempt to tow the Intrepid out, a mound of mud

plowed up around the propellers and shafts. The ship only

moved 10 or 15 feet.

Dredge 300 feet from the stern toward the bow along the port

side and remove the speed bump.
52 Engineer January-March 2007

a grounded ship that needed to be carefully freed.

USACE recommended that Intrepid

officials contact United States Navy

salvage experts, since they have unique

knowledge and experience in freeing

large ships. They would also know how

the Intrepid would react to being in such

a precarious situation. The next day, the

United States Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)salvage contractor had

an assessment team at the Intrepid.

Salvage divers surveyed below the

waterline to inspect the vessel for

damage and determine the extent of the

speed bump. The divers’ firsthand

examination confirmed the initial

assumptions and documented the extent

of the problem. Soon the Navy was

working with USACE, the Intrepid

Foundation, and state and city agencies

to execute a unique and highly visible

dredging operation to remove compacted

sediment from around the propellers

and shafts.

The Navy brought technical and

contractor expertise to the partnership,

and USACE provided project oversight

and integration. Because this is their

home area, District team members had

the local knowledge and existing

relationships with stakeholders, government agencies and officials, and the

media. This mission was executed as a

joint military operation with daily

progress meetings and situation reports.

The team devised a three-phase execution plan.

 Dig the existing access channel

deeper and wider and add an access

trench on the south side of the vessel

from the Intrepid’s stern to beyond

its trapped propellers and shafts.

 Use a drag bar under the stern and

rake the sediment out.

 Airlift or vacuum the remaining mud

from under the ship’s fantail.

Crews worked around the clock to

remove the mud in 29 days, before the

next high tide, which would provide an

extra 5 feet of water to remove the ship.

That was their best shot at freeing the

vessel, and they didn’t want to miss the

opportunity.

Work also moved swiftly due to

environmental concerns over the

Intrepid’s precarious state. Her hull

plates could separate and leak petroleumcontaminated bilge water—which was

to be removed and environmentally

disposed of during the shipyard visit in

Bayonne—into the river. Also

concerned about the return of anadromous fish species to the river estuary

for the winter spawning season, work

continued so the fish would settle into

other parts of the estuary. Since the

weather and the river temperatures were

remaining unusually warm, the return of

the fish was delayed. Because of this and

the urgent need to dredge, the Intrepid

Museum received extended work permits

from USACE and the New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation to allow the dredging to start a

week after the grounding.

An environmental dredging bucket

was used to minimize any adverse water

quality and fisheries impacts. The

clamshell bucket is fitted with gaskets

over the openings so dredged material

stays inside the bucket and the water

goes back into the river. First, the existing

dredged access channel to the main

channel was deepened and widened.

Then, to start access under the ship, a

150-foot-long by 30-foot-wide by

35-foot-deep trench was dredged down

the starboard (outboard) stern side of

the ship, from the Intrepid’s stern to

beyond the propellers and shafts

encased in mud. Unfortunately, the

access trench could not be dug directly

beside the hull because the flight deck

overhang prevented the crane dredge

from coming up next to the ship.

To overcome this, a drag-bar barge

was moved under the flight deck

alongside the hull, where the drag-bar

blade was lowered to the shallow bottom.

Then, pulling the barge and blade away

from the ship, the bar raked the river mud

into the trench, working like an

underwater bulldozer. The plowed mud

was then dredged out of the trench, and

the process was repeated until the

35-foot trench expanded all the way to

the ship’s hull. As the trench approached

the hull, river mud that fell into the trench

from under the fantail and around the

propellers and shafts was raked by the

drag bar and removed by the environmental bucket dredge.

The ship needed 28 feet of water to

be extracted from its berth. As divers and

hydrographic survey crews measured

progress next to and under the ship, they

saw that the propellers and shafts on the

starboard (outboard) side of the ship

were nearly exposed as the mud was

sloughing down into the trench. These

in-progress investigations, together

with the experience of the salvage crew,

prompted officials to extend the access

trench an additional 150 feet toward the

bow. The extended trench allowed the As it passes Ground Zero, a 100-foot American Flag is unfurled by USS

Intrepid veterans as a tribute to the lives lost there on 11 September 2001.

Photo by Dan Desmet, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District
January-March 2007 Engineer 53

ship to be pulled both sideways from the

pier and backward toward the main

channel before being extricated from the

remaining mud on the port side.

After almost 3 weeks of work and the

removal of approximately 39,000 cubic

yards of river mud, divers were able to

touch the exposed propellers and shafts,

showing that the dragging and dredging

operations were working and the ship

would soon be ready to tow. Luckily, the

slow and inefficient airlifting method

would not have to be used.

One of the biggest challenges was the

availability of dredged material

processing barges. To ensure that an

empty barge was next to every dredge,

the New York City Economic Development Corporation and the Department of

Sanitation worked jointly to locate and

track barges around the clock so the

dredging cycle could continue.

Another challenge was how to

beneficially use the dredged material.

The 39,000 cubic yards of river mud were

transported and processed in fifty-three

New York City Department of Sanitation

barges. The sediment was tested for

pollutants and found to be acceptable

for reuse. Portland cement was added to

each barge load and thoroughly mixed,

which chemically and structurally

stabilized the dredged material, capturing

any pollutants in the processed material.

It was then used as interim cover in the

closure of New York City’s former Fresh

Kills landfill at Staten Island. Once the

largest landfill in the world, it is being

transformed into reclaimed wetlands,

recreational facilities, and a landscaped

public park.

On 6 December 2006—the 29th day

of the emergency operation—officials

from the Intrepid Foundation, USACE,

and the Navy, as well as USS Intrepid

veterans (including Felix Novelli) and the

media, stood on the Intrepid’s flight deck.

The ship was surrounded by tugboats,

USACE harbor workboats, United States

Coast Guard cutters, New York City

police boats and fireboats, and a flock

of helicopters. It was the coldest morning

of the year—with constant winds of

10 to 20 knots from the west pushing

against the ship—and the Hudson

River’s high tide and slack water were

not at the same time. When the tide was

the highest, the river’s strong current

had not stopped yet and was still

running upriver at more than 5 knots. The

tugboats had to extract the Intrepid with

great force and finesse, pulling the ship

at a 5-degree angle away from the

remaining mud in the berth, while

maintaining tight control so it didn’t

swing out and crash back into Pier 86 as

it entered the swift river currents.

After 29 minutes of relentless pulling

by five powerful tugboats and the

combined force of 21,000 horsepower,

the Intrepid moved forward. The ship

moved gracefully out of the berth, through

the newly dredged access channel, and

out to the main Hudson River federal

channel in a slow but majestic voyage

5 miles down the Hudson River.

On the way downriver, the Intrepid

slowed slightly while passing the World

Trade Center site, as twenty former

crewmembers unfurled a 100-foot

American flag to honor those who died

there on 11 September 2001. The Intrepid

paused again briefly while passing the

Statue of Liberty en route to the ship’s

temporary home, the Bayonne Dry Dock

Company at the former United States

Army Military Ocean Terminal in

Bayonne, New Jersey. There the 63-yearold ship began a long-overdue refurbishment, after which it will be moved

to Staten Island, New York, for interior

renovations before returning to a rebuilt

Pier 86 in late 2008.

Seeing the Intrepid move again was

inspiring for Novelli, who stood on the

flight deck like he did as a teenager. “It

was like I was a kid, waking up on

Christmas morning and finding a nice set

of electric trains under the tree. You’re

filled with joy. I was back at sea and

19 years old again. A million thoughts

came back. My main thought being the

kids that we left on the floor of the ocean.”

For more information about the

Intrepid Sea, Air, and Space

Museum, please visit <www.intrepid

museum.org>.

Dr. Castagna is a technical writereditor for the United States Army Corps

of Engineers, New York District. She

can be reached at <joanne.castagna

@usace.army.mil>.

The USS Intrepid

receives a water

cannon salute in New

York Harbor as the ship

pauses near the Statue

Photo courtesy of USS Intrepid Sea and Air Space Museum

of Liberty.
54 Engineer January-March 2007

United States Army firefighting detachments are

sorely needed for airfield

and base camp operations throughout the current operating environment. These units fulfill a very

important function for the Army—

that of force protection through

reduction or elimination of fire

hazards. While deployed, these

detachments also provide vital mission support in the form of vehicle

crash rescue, confined space rescue,

high angle rescue, and immediate

hazardous materials (HAZMAT)

response. Nearly all of the military

occupational specialty (MOS) 21M

(firefighter) Soldiers are either professional or volunteer

firefighters in their civilian careers and practice these skills on

a regular basis. All but one of the military firefighting detachments are either United States Army Reserve or Army National

Guard units.

The unit commander is usually a first lieutenant or a junior

captain. According to the modified table of equipment (MTOE),

they are the fire marshal—with responsibilities ranging from

morale, safety, training, maintenance, preparation for deployments, and development and implementation of fire protection

plans. If this fire marshal is the only engineer officer attached

to an aviation brigade, he is likely assigned the additional

duty of brigade staff engineer liaison officer and a myriad of

other duties.

With only rare exceptions, these officers have no firefighting experience, which puts them at a distinct disadvantage. Firefighting is not taught in any engineer officer

courses, to include the Engineer Basic Officer Leader Course

(BOLC), Engineer Captain’s Career Course (ECCC), Combined

Arms Exercise (CAX) Course, and Combined Arms and

Services Staff School (CAS3). In fact, some engineer officers

are not aware that firefighting detachments exist, much less

that they fall under the giant umbrella of the Engineer Regiment.

The senior noncommissioned officer (NCO), or fire chief,

is—according to the current MTOE—an E6 21M who has

advanced through the ranks of the unit. Most fire chiefs have

been 21Ms their entire career and have stayed in the same unit

because it was the only firefighting detachment within the

regional readiness command or the

state. Without a doubt, they know

their job. The fire inspector is an E5

or E6 and is typically only slightly

junior to the fire chief. These two

senior NCOs have a tremendous

responsibility, especially on the fire

scene. However, in a brigade or

division setting, they carry little

weight, even as an E7.

In order to be promoted to E7, most

21Ms have to move to another unit

and accept another MOS. Only after

that assignment can they move back

to the firefighting detachment as the

senior NCO. This prevents many

NCOs, who have acquired very

specialized skills, from staying in the detachments. Or, on the

flip side, this situation develops a culture of homesteading—

the tendency of personnel to find a unit and position and stay

there until they are forced to retire. Given the Army Reserve/

National Guard policy of promoting into slots, homesteading

in these small units prevents junior enlisted personnel from

being promoted to E5 without being reclassified. From my

experience, the most often cited reason for 21M Soldiers

leaving the Army after their initial contract ended is the inability

to be promoted.

Based on my experience as fire marshal of the 369th Engineer

Detachment (Firefighting) during Operation Iraqi Freedom

Phase I, my recommendation is that the firefighting detachment

MTOE be modified to replace the first lieutenant with a warrant

officer 1 or warrant officer 2. Then provide the senior NCO in

the unit an opportunity to advance by allowing him to attend

the Warrant Officer Basic Course. As a warrant officer, the fire

marshal would be recognized as the expert he is in his technical

field and would have rank, stature, and respect during the

brigade and division staff meetings that he attended.

At a minimum, the Warrant Officer Course should include

the following plan of instruction:

 Senior-level firefighter courses (coordinated with the local

Fire Academy)

 HAZMAT and confined spaces trainer courses (to train

his Soldiers in these skills when he returns to the unit)

 Administrative duties (such as awards and NCO Evaluation

Reports [NCOERs])

By Captain Max Hanna

Firefighting Unit Leadership:

An Opportunity for Change
officers. They could establish a professional detachment with

capable and knowledgeable leaders and create better opportunities for advancement of junior Soldiers. This would

also enable some engineer first lieutenants to fill other

positions—such as platoon leader or company executive

officer—which would better benefit the Army.

Captain Hanna served as Commander of the

369th Engineer Detachment (Firefighting) during its oneyear deployment to Baghdad in support of Operation Iraqi

Freedom Phase I.

January-March 2007 Engineer 55

 Supply (accountability, supply discipline, and the forms

required to maintain a multimillion dollar property book)

 Maintenance (specifically, maintenance procedures

required for the specialized firefighting equipment)

 Risk assessment

 Practice in public speaking (to prepare for briefing division

or brigade commanders)

With this change to the MTOE, these vital firefighting

detachments would be similar in leadership structure to many

geospatial mapping teams that are currently led by warrant

Dedication

The following members of the Engineer Regiment have been lost in the Global War on Terrorism since the last issue of Engineer.

We dedicate this issue to them.

Blohm, Private First Class Alan R. 425th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 25th Infantry Division Fort Richardson, Alaska

Bubeck, Sergeant John T. 9th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Schweinfurt, Germany

Burrows, Private Joshua C. 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Caldwell, Specialist Eric T. 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Clevenger, Specialist Ross A. Alpha Company, 321st Engineer Battalion Boise, Idaho

English, Captain Shawn L. 577th Engineer Battalion, 1st Engineer Brigade Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

Fraser, First Lieutenant David M. 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Hamill, Captain Jason R. 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Henry Jr., Corporal Lorne E. 2d Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 10th Mountain Division Fort Drum, New York

Holtom, Sergeant James J. Alpha Company, 321st Engineer Battalion Boise, Idaho

Kingman, Sergeant Jonathan P. C. 1st Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division Fort Riley, Kansas

Love Jr., Staff Sergeant Robert L. 16th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division Giessen, Germany

McCormick, Private Clinton T. 2d Brigade Support Battalion, 2d Infantry Division Fort Carson, Colorado

McPeek, Specialist Alan E. 16th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division Giessen, Germany

Moreno, Private Reece D. 92d Engineer Battalion, 3d Infantry Division Fort Stewart, Georgia

Nelson, Private First Class Andrew H. 9th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Schweinfurt, Germany

Phaneuf II, Staff Sergeant Joseph E. Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 102d Infantry Brigade Hartford, Connecticut

Preston, Specialist Aaron L. 9th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division Schweinfurt, Germany

Riekena, Sergeant James D. Alpha Company, 145th Combat Support Battalion Post Falls, Idaho

Shannon, Corporal Stephen D. Charlie Company, 397th Engineer Battalion Wausau, Wisconsin

Sheppard, Specialist Joshua D. 642d Engineer Support Company, 10th Mountain Division Fort Drum, New York

Soukenka, Sergeant Richard A. 2d Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 10th Mountain Division Fort Drum, New York

Volker, Specialist Robert J. 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Werner, Private First Class Raymond M. Alpha Company, 321st Engineer Battalion Boise, Idaho

Wright, Sergeant Gregroy A. 1st Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division Fort Riley, Kansas
56 Engineer January-March 2007

Transition From ARTEP MTPs to CATS. The U.S.

Army is in the final phase of transitioning from using the

Army Training and Evaluation Program (ARTEP) mission

training plans (MTPs) as a collective training tool to using

the combined arms training strategy (CATS). A CATS is

a unit training strategy which, as an entity, takes the

entire training planning process from the cradle to the

grave. A CATS is developed from a unit’s base table of

organization and equipment (TOE) and Department of the

Army-approved mission statement. They are designed

using the crawl-walk-run training model. Commanders will

make the final determination as to which tasks should be

trained and at what level the training should begin, since

they will know their unit’s training status. Included in CATS

are the required training resources such as Class III and

Class V materials and training aids, devices, simulators,

and simulations (TADSS).

Engineer Dog Handlers Needed! The Engineer

Canine Detachment Program continues to grow. Exceptional military occupational specialty (MOS) 21B

combat engineers are needed to become dog handlers

and work as part of a Specialized Search Dog (SSD) or

Mine Detection Dog (MDD) Team. Our Canine Detachments are a major part of the theater commander’s

counter improvised explosive device (IED) measures. The

Engineer Regiment is constantly responding to increased

requirements for dog teams in support of Operation Iraqi

Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom commanders.

Interested 21Bs in the rank of specialist through staff

sergeant must be physically and mentally capable of

deploying and working independently for maneuver

commanders. Handlers must be mature, articulate,

assertive, and self-motivated Soldiers who have no fear of

dogs. Initial screening for interested Soldiers will be

conducted telephonically. The names of potential

candidates will be forwarded to the Human Resources

Command Engineer Branch for assignment consideration.

The point of contact is <richard.villa@us.army.mil>

(573) 596-5497.

The current ARTEP MTPs that are located on the

Reimer Digital Library (RDL) are scheduled to be

removed from the RDL in February 2007. Once this is

complete, all CATS will be located on Army Knowledge

Online (AKO) on their own dedicated page. The planned

end state is movement of CATS to the Digital Training

Management System (DTMS) once it is fully fielded.

Additionally, the Collective Training Division of the United

States Army Engineer School developed a Web site on

the Engineer Portal which will also have links to CATS

and files available for download. The following link will

take you to the site: <https://www.mwu.army.mil/portal/

eng/index.php>.

The point of contact at the Engineer School Collective

Training Division is <joseph.toth1@us.army.mil> or call

(573) 563-7821.

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

Center for Engineer Lessons Learned (CELL). The

United States Army Engineer School CELL needs your

help. To keep training, doctrine, and combat developments

current and to prepare for the future, it is critical that the

school continuously receive relevant engineer observations, insights, and lessons (OIL). The CELL can derive

information from a variety of sources: unit after-action

reports (AARs); tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP)

used by units in and returning from theater; Soldier

observations/submissions to the Engineer School; and

requests for information (RFIs). This information is used

to conduct doctrine, organization, training, materiel,

leadership and education, personnel, and facilities

(DOTMLPF) gap analyses and to determine solutions.

These solutions are distributed to the Engineer Regiment

via new doctrine and training products, Engineer (The

Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers) and other

publications, and websites and by answering RFIs. (The

Engineer School RFI website provides the Engineer

Regiment a reachback capability.) You can help by

forwarding any of these materials from your unit’s

deployment to the CELL. Unclassified information can be

sent to <Doctrine.Engineer@wood.army.mil>. Classified

information can be sent by secure Internet protocol, routed

(SIPR) e-mail to <reginald.snodgrass@us.army.smil.mil>.

The point of contact is <reggie.snodgrass@us.

army.mil> or call (573) 563-6121.

Engineer Update
New Subscriptions: Use the subscription form below. Cost for a subscription is $19.00 (domestic and

APO/FPO) or $26.60 (foreign).

Renewal Subscriptions: To keep subscription

prices down, the Government Printing Office mails

each subscriber only one renewal notice. To be sure

that your service continues without interruption, please

return your notice promptly. If your subscription

service is discontinued, simply send your mailing

label from any issue to the Superintendent of

Documents, ATTN: Mail List Branch, Mail Stop: SSOM,

Washington, D.C. 20402, with the proper remittance,

and your service will be reinstated.

Address Changes: Please send your mailing label,

along with your new address, to the Superintendent

of Documents, ATTN: Mail List Branch, Mail Stop:

SUBSCRIBE TO ENGINEER TODAY

Credit card orders are welcome!

Fax your orders (202) 512-2250

Phone your orders (202) 512-1800

United States Government

INFORMATION

List ID: TENG

 YES, please send ________ subscriptions of:

Engineer, The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers, at $19 each ($26.60 foreign) per year.

The total cost of my order is $________. Price includes regular shipping and handling and is subject to change.

SSOM, Washington, D.C. 20402.

Inquiries About Subscription Service: Please send your mailing label, along with your inquiry, to

Superintendent of Documents, ATTN: Mail List Branch, Mail Stop: SSOM, Washington, D.C. 20402. The

telephone number is (202) 512-1800.

City State Zip code+4

Name or title (Please type or print)

Company name Room, floor, suite

Street address

/ /

Daytime phone including area code

Purchase order number (optional)

Check method of payment:

Check payable to: Superintendent of Documents

GPO Deposit Account

VISA Mastercard Discover

(expiration date)

Authorizing signature

Mail to: Superintendent of Documents, PO Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954

Important: Please include this completed order form with your remittance.

Thank you for your order!

Subscription Order Form