COMMANDANT

BG Gregg F. Martin

563-6192

<gregg.martin@us.army.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL Lou L. Marich	 	 	 	 	

563-8080

<lou.marich@us.army.mil>

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR

CSM Clinton J. Pearson

563-8060

<clinton.pearson@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>

COMMANDER, 1st ENGINEER BRIGADE

LTC Diane Cummins-Lefler	 	 	 	 	

596-0224, DSN 581-0224

<diane.cumminslefler@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT

COL Jerry Meyer

563-4093

<jerry.meyer@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION

Mr. Robert F. Danner

329-1942

<robert.f.danner@us.army.mil>

COUNTER EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS CENTER

COL Richard M. Hornack	 	 	 	 	

563-8142

<richard.hornack@us.army.mil>

HUMANITARIAN DEMINING TRAINING CENTER

Mr. Rodney A. Robideau

596-3870

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

ENGINEER PERSONNEL PROPONENCY OFFICE

CW5 Robert K. Lamphear

563-4088

<robert.lamphear@us.army.mil>

ENGINEER DOCTRINE, MANSCEN DOT

LTC Edward R. Lefler

563-7537

<edward.lefler@us.army.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT ORGANIZATION

LTC Leonard E. Wells

593-6282

<leonard.wells@us.army.mil>

Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is prepared quarterly by

the United States Army Engineer School and the MANSCEN Directorate of Training, 464 MANSCEN Loop, Suite

2661, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8926. Periodicals postage is paid at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and

additional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to MANSCEN

Directorate of Training, ATTN: ATZT-TDS-BS (Engineer),

464 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 2661, Fort Leonard Wood,

Missouri 65473-8926.

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: <leon.engineer@conus.

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:

0805204

JOYCE E. MORROW

Administrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army

United States Army Engineer School

573-563-8080 / DSN 676-8080
E R

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Brigadier General 

Gregg F. Martin

03 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major

Clinton J. Pearson

44 From the Archives – “The

	 Engineer”

By Sergeant First Class Samuel S.

Ramseur, Jr.

44 Military Review 2008 Writing

Competition

45 Book Reviews – “Hog Pilots, Blue

	 Water Grunts” and “The Great

	 Deluge”

Reviewed by Lieutenant Colonel 

Stephen V. Tennant

63 Dedication

64 Past in Review – “Fueling the Front 

Lines: Army Pipeline Units – Part II”

By Mr. Thomas J. Petty

68 The Engineer Writer’s Guide

Front Cover: ENFORCE 2008 - Building

Great Engineers (logo design by Jennifer

Morgan)

Back Cover: U.S. Army photos

MANAGING EDITOR

Shirley Bridges

EDITOR

Rick Brunk

CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

Cheryl Green

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Jennifer Morgan

COMMANDANT

Brigadier General

Gregg F. Martin

FEATURES

04 Join the Campaign: Engineer Leader Technical Competency

By Colonel Jerry C. Meyer and Brigadier General Gregg F. Martin

08 ECCC–RC Improves Technical Competency 

By Lieutenant Colonel Steven K. Knutzen and Major James L. Bunch 

10 New Opportunity for RC Officers to Earn Engineering Master’s

Degree

By Lieutenant Colonel Steven K. Knutzen and Major James L. Bunch

14 Technical Training for Officers in the French Engineer Corps

By Lieutenant Colonel Philippe Potin

18 Leadership and Technical Development in the Corps of Royal

Engineers

By Colonel Andrew W. Phillips

21 Joint Engineering Strategy

By Major John P. Lloyd

24 The Joint Engineering Way Ahead

By Ms. Rachel M. Walkenbach

26 Joint Engineer Operations Course Overview

By Ms. Rachel M. Walkenbach

28 Gator: EOD Counter-IED Training

By Senior Master Sergeant Mike Hague

30 Engineer Operational Manuals Update

By Lieutenant Colonel Barry Supplee (Retired) and Lieutenant Colonel 

	 Edward R. Lefler

34 Engineer Doctrine Update

By Lieutenant Colonel Barry Supplee (Retired) and Lieutenant Colonel 

	 Edward R. Lefler

42 Dive Team Repairs Table Rock Dam

By First Lieutenant Russell T. Destremps

47 Operation Alaskan Road

By Ms. Vicki D. Hall

51 Theater Construction Management System: Time to Raise the

Standards

By Lieutenant Colonel Joseph D. Tyron

54 The Engineer Staff Pentathlete: Staff Leadership and Dimensions

for Success in a Transforming World

By Lieutenant Colonel Adam S. Roth

58 Training in the Fight – Experiences in Afghanistan

By Major James X. Francis

61 Modular Engineer Structure in Divisions

By Colonel Jeffrey R. Eckstein

69 Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Capability Integration Team

By Mr. John Moore

69 Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Training Website

By Mr. John Moore

Volume 38 PB 5-08-1 Headquarters, Department of the Army January-March 2008

NGINEE

UNITED STATES ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

MANSCEN

DIRECTORATE OF TRAINING

PUBLICATIONS BRANCH

January-March 2008 Engineer 1
2 Engineer January-March 2008

By Brigadier General Gregg F. Martin

Commandant, United States Army Engineer School

Clear The Way 

On behalf of the United States 

Army Engineer School, I 

would like to welcome the 

entire engineer community, to include 

spouses, to the annual Engineer 

Regimental Conference—ENFORCE 

2008. This year’s conference activities 

will be held in two locations: St. Louis, 

from 4–6 May, and Fort Leonard Wood, 

from 7–10 May. 

Beginning with the Army Engineer 

Association (AEA) icebreaker on 

Sunday evening, you can expect the 

following days to be filled with extraordinary events and social activities. 

We have scheduled several engaging 

speakers, to include the Chief of Engineers with his State

of the Regiment address. In addition, there will be 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

break-out sessions, Engineer School work groups, 

contractor-industry events, vendor displays, along with

several ceremonial activities, including the AEA President’s Dinner, the Regimental Ball, the Regimental

Review, the Commandant’s luncheon, and the “Remembering Our Heroes” Memorial Service. You are invited to

end the conference week on Saturday with a few rounds 

of golf at the Fort Leonard Wood Piney Valley Golf 

Course. Activities are also planned for spouses in both

St. Louis and Fort Leonard Wood throughout the week.

One of the highlights of the Regimental Ball will 

be the Chief of Engineers presentation of the Itschner, 

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly), Van 

Autreve, and Best Sapper Competition Awards, as well 

as the Sturgis and de Fleury Medals. Congratulations to 

all the recipients! Once again, you have demonstrated the 

outstanding accomplishments of the Regiment. 

The ENFORCE 2008 theme is “Building Great 

Engineers,” which stems from our ongoing Engineer Leader 

Technical Competency (ELTC) Study. The analytical 

framework for the ELTC Study is from the book Good to 

Great by Jim Collins. The Study is part of a larger strategic 

issue of how best to manage our precious human talent 

in the Information Age, during an era of persistent global 

conflict. We MUST figure out how to properly access, 

develop/train/educate, employ, and retain 

our great engineers for full-spectrum 

operations, which requires a blending of 

both great tactical and technical expertise 

and capabilities in our Regiment.

We are teaming with people and 

organizations from across the Army, joint 

forces, allies, academia, industry, and 

professional organizations to plan how we 

can get the right people on the right seat 

on the right bus. To this end, much of our 

ENFORCE time at Fort Leonard Wood 

will be spent in six work groups that are 

assigned the task of paving the way ahead 

for the Regiment. The work groups are— 

Future Engineer Missions, Roles, Methods of Delivery

Accessions

Training and Education (post-accession)

Employment

Retention

Strategic Communications

The deliverable on Friday, 9 May, will be a back-brief 

from each work group—with a written action plan—to the 

Chief of Engineers and the Regiment. These action plans will 

address “cradle to grave” personnel management and will be 

the foundation of our Regimental Campaign Plan, which will 

set our course for the future. 

In addition to the hard intellectual work, we will have 

a great time of fellowship and enjoyment, learning and 

professional development, as we celebrate the achievements, 

traditions, and history of our great Regiment. 

I am looking forward to ENFORCE 2008! It is a great event 

for the entire Regiment—Civilians, Soldiers, and Families; 

Active, Guard, Reserve; USACE; Directorates of Public 

Works (DPWs); Retirees; Academia, and Contractors. We 

will also embrace our Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, 

and Allied teammates, from whom we have much to learn and 

whose good ideas we will shamelessly steal (while willingly 

sharing our own). Together, we will make this an ENFORCE 

to remember!

■

■

■

■

■

■
January-March 2008 Engineer 3

Lead The Way 

By Command Sergeant Major Clinton J. Pearson

United States Army Engineer School

To all the engineers who don’t run 

the world but who make it run, 

I’d like to once again extend my 

heartfelt appreciation for all you do to help 

make our Regiment great. Here at the Engineer School, we have won, then lost—and 

in some cases won back—key battles in 

regard to our Regiment’s organizations, 

equipment, personnel, and doctrine. Although some of the faces have changed, 

and will continue to change, the mission 

here at Fort Leonard Wood will always be 

to ensure that our Regiment is relevant and 

integral to the Army’s transformation. 

I have visited most of our engineer Soldiers throughout the world, and I’m always 

impressed with their enthusiasm and professionalism when 

they perform their duties. Our engineer Soldiers are the busiest in our Army and are the busiest they have ever been over 

the last 20 years.

Soon Fort Leonard Wood will host two important yearly 

events for our Regiment—ENFORCE and the Best Sapper 

Competition:

ENFORCE 2008. This year’s ENFORCE, with the 

theme of “Building Great Engineers,” will have more than 

one regimental concept, as we bridge the gaps between our 

Corps and Regiment. We will leverage all of the experience 

from our Corps’s senior leadership, as well as our civilians. 

ENFORCE 2008 will begin in St. Louis, from 4 - 6 May, 

and the conclusion will be at Fort Leonard Wood, from

7-10 May. I look forward to seeing many of you at this year’s 

events, and I hope that you are planning to spend the week 

renewing friendships and resolving issues as we focus on 

our full-spectrum engineering capability in support of our 

Army.

ENFORCE 2008 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, the Engineer 

Run, the Regimental Ball, the Engineer Memorial Dedication 

Service, and the Best Sapper Competition. The conference 

will culminate with the annual Regimental Dinner, where we 

will recognize our 2008 Itschner, Sturgis, 

and Grizzly Award winners, along with 

our Honorary Colonel of the Regiment, 

Honorary Command Sergeant Major, and 

Honorary Warrant Officer. To sum it up, 

ENFORCE 2008 will undoubtedly instill in 

each of us an immense sense of pride in our

Regiment.

Best Sapper Competition. The 3d

Annual Best Sapper Compettion, held

at Fort Leonard Wood from 6 - 8 May,

will coincide with ENFORCE for the 

second time. Last year’s competition 

was won by the 66th Engineer Battalion 

from Hawaii, which took first place for 

the last two years. The ultimate measure of a person is not 

where he stands in the moments of comfort and convenience, 

but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

I challenge all high-speed, qualified sapper Soldiers to

dethrone the Tropic Lightning and claim the top honors as

the best sapper team. 

The competition, which includes events involving demolitions, mountaineering, U.S. and threat weapons, land navigation, and more, tests the knowledge, physical prowess, and 

mental fortitude of engineer Soldiers across the Regiment. 

Conducted in two-man buddy teams, the competition is open 

to all personnel serving in a 21-series MOS, or anyone who 

has completed the Sapper Leader Course. This is the defining 

competition for the Engineer Regiment and its Soldiers. So 

select and train your best teams for this extraordinary competition! I encourage all commanders and sergeants major to 

plan ahead and come to Fort Leonard Wood to show your 

support to our Sappers. 

In closing, I am extremely proud of our Regiment’s Soldiers for their contributions and positive impact over the past 

year. I am especially proud of the sappers who are deployed 

around the world in harm’s way. To those who have made 

the ultimate sacrifice in the cause of freedom, justice, and the 

American way of life, neither you nor your Families will be 

forgotten. God Bless America!
4 Engineer January-March 2008

The Chief of Engineers has received several indicators 

recently that engineer leader technical competency 

has declined. Some of these indicators are—

Criticism of the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Comments from senior military leaders concerning

engineer support to the War on Terrorism.

Known decreases in military engineering developmental assignments in USACE and in installation directorates of public works (DPWs).

A decades-long shift away from the more balanced and 

full-spectrum approach that characterized our Regiment for most of its history, toward a predominantly

sapper (mobility and countermobility) mentality in the

Engineer Regiment.

All of these factors indicate that this decline may cross multiple levels of both civilian and military leadership. 

Make no mistake­—combat engineering, tactical warfighting expertise, and our Sapper-Warrior spirit are still paramount, and the hallmark of our Regiment. But today’s operational environment of persistent conflict requires a more 

balanced engineer capability that can more effectively deliver 

combat, general, and geospatial engineer effects in order to 

expertly support full-spectrum operations.

Another factor spotlighting the need for—and perhaps 

magnifying the decline of—competency is Department of 

Defense Directive 3000.05, Military Support for Stability, 

Security, Transition, and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations, 

which places stability operations as a major priority on par 

■

■

■

■

with combat operations. Recently released Army Field Manual 3-0, Operations, echoes this theme and further emphasizes the Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Operations, definition 

of stability operations to include “infrastructure reconstruction.” For the Engineer Regiment, this has placed increased 

emphasis on construction engineering skills and interagency 

operations.

Engineer Technical Competency

What is engineer technical competency? The phrase 

“engineer technical” refers to those skills unique 

to Army officers (commissioned, warrant, and 

noncommissioned [NCO]), enlisted Soldiers, and civilians 

that differentiate engineer abilities from those found in most 

other Army branches, military occupational specialties, and 

civilian career programs. “Competency” is the occupationbased knowledge, skills, and abilities required for successful 

and acceptable job performance. Though initially associated 

with construction and general engineering tasks under current stability operations, engineer technical competency also 

encompasses a myriad of broader Army engineer capabilities 

such as geospatial, firefighter, underwater diving, and utilities 

competencies.

USACE began its investigation into issues, problems, and 

factors related to technical competencies and mission execution in 2005. Among the findings of a 2006 Logistics Management Institute study were:

There is no corporate agreement and understanding of

the USACE competencies needed to successfully deliver

a wide range of engineer products and services.

■

Engineer Leader Technical Competency

By Colonel Jerry C. Meyer and Brigadier General Gregg F. Martin

Great vision without great people is irrelevant.

— Good to Great, Jim Collins 

Join the Campaign:
January-March 2008 Engineer 5

There are multiple noninegrated, competencyrelated initiatives underway within USACE.

There is no corporate champion for competency

development.

There is no integrated sense of urgency regarding competency.

The USACE culture does not readily accept

the integration and changing nature of 

delivering its services. 

Subsequent actions established a USACE National Technical Competency Strategy and a team to 

develop integrated, sustainable ways to effectively 

and efficiently implement that strategy. Concepts 

from Jim Collins’s book Good to Great are being 

used to further study and mitigation.

In light of the perceived decline and increased 

capability requirements, the Chief of Engineers, 

Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp, enlisted the Commandant of the United States Army

Engineer School to lead further investigation and resolution 

of the decline. Using the model and lessons learned by

USACE, the Commandant has championed and widened

the efforts across the Engineer Regiment.

The Flywheel Effect

I

t takes great effort to get a flywheel to move from a 

standstill and inch forward. With continued pushing, the 

flywheel eventually will begin to move faster until it rotates. As it makes more turns—moving faster and faster—the 

momentum of the heavy wheel comes into play, and its own 

■

■

■

■

weight helps keep it going. Now there is no need to push 

harder and the flywheel accelerates, building momentum and 

increasing speed.1

The Commandant of the Engineer School has partnered 

within and outside the Department of Defense to investigate 

and implement solutions to reverse the decline of engineer 

leader technical competency. Army participants include—but 

are not limited to—the Engineer School, USACE, United 

States Military Academy at West Point, various organizations within Accessions Command, Human Resources Command, Office of the Chief of Engineers–Pentagon, Office of 

Students from the Engineer Basic Officer Leader Course take bridge measurements as 

part of their route reconnaissance training.

Lieutenants assist in a Habitat for Humanity project as part of their 

training and education in the general engineering module during 

the Engineer Basic Officer Leader Course.
6 Engineer January-March 2008

Economic and Manpower Analysis (OEMA), Reserve Component, Training and Doctrine Command’s Capabilities Development and Integrations Directorate, and the Maneuver 

Support Center’s Directorate of Training. Participants outside 

the Army include engineering-related organizations from sister Services and joint engineers, allied countries, academia, 

private organizations, and industry. 

Sustainable Strategy

The intent is to develop and implement an integrated, 

sustainable National Engineer Leader Technical Competency Strategy that accesses, develops, employs, 

and retains world-class engineer leaders who are technically 

and tactically capable and competent to deliver full-spectrum 

engineering in the 21st century. To date, there has been incremental but tangible progress that fits into an overall working 

concept. 

Six work groups have been organized to investigate deficiencies and recommend and implement initiatives:

Future Engineer Missions, Roles, Methods of Delivery

Accessions

Training and Education (post-accession)

Employment

Retention

Communications 

Work group responsibilities include assessment of nearand long-term engineer leader capability and competency 

concerns; recommendation of “quick wins” to improve engineer technical competency; collaboration and sharing of

■

■

■

■

■

■

information on future missions, roles, and methods of delivery; 

standardized definitions of competencies; definition of metrics 

to measure desired competencies; determination of how to

anticipate and shape future work force trends; partnership and 

communication with other work groups concerning trends, 

objectives, needs, solutions, and progress. 

Initial data collected on Active Army engineer officers 

(one of the smaller leader groups for which quantifiable data 

are available) corroborates the perceived decline. There has 

been a significant decline in the share of Engineer Branch 

officer accessions with a degree in engineering—from

54 percent in 1998 to 31 percent in 2007. The share of engineer officers with engineering degrees from top-tier schools 

has declined in recent years—from 30 percent in 1999 to

14 percent in 2007. Engineer technical developmental assignments for officers have declined—installation DPWs 

have lost military positions, and there are fewer military 

assignments to USACE. The share of engineer field grade 

officers with engineering credentials, such as a professional engineering license, has fallen by about a third—from

19 percent in 2002 to 12 percent in 2007.2 Allied nations and 

sister Services invest more time educating their officers in 

technical skills and developmental assignments that enhance 

technical skills. For example, the Canadian Army equivalent 

to the U.S. Army’s Engineer Basic Officer Leader Course is

24 weeks versus 13 weeks. U.S. Air Force and Navy engineers are held to more stringent standards that mandate engineer technical proficiency. 

The current U.S. Army engineer force structure does not 

facilitate senior engineer mentoring of junior engineer officers 

and NCOs. For example, there is typically no resident engineer 

battalion commander/staff to mentor brigade combat team 

engineer company captains and lieutenants. Additionally, the 

Soldiers of the 299th Engineer Company span the gap in the bridge over the Kazer River, created 

during the war by Iraqi forces.

Photo by SPC Robert Woodward
January-March 2008 Engineer 7

contemporary operational environment has 

raised concerns over a decline in officer tactical competency in high-intensity conflict 

engineer operations. (Much unit-level and

predeployment training focuses on fighting 

counterinsurgencies rather than more conventional enemy forces.) Some investigation has revealed that this challenge is not 

confined to engineers and is even more pronounced in armor and field artillery.

In addition to the research in defining 

the challenge, announcing initial Engineer Leader Technical Competency findings and actions has been part of early 

“flywheel” efforts. This includes visits 

by the Commandant to engineer students 

in the Intermediate Leaders Education 

Course at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 

and to cadets, faculty, and senior leaders 

at West Point, which have uncovered 

vigorous offers of assistance. The Commandant has also 

addressed the issue of engineer leader technical competence 

at venues such as the Society of American Military

Engineers Joint Engineer NCO Symposium, Engineer 

Precommand Course, Engineer Captains Career Course,

1st Engineer Brigade, and Joint Engineer Operations 

Course.

The Engineer School has also initiated actions that include examining the curricula of the Basic Officer Leader 

Course and Captains Career Course, the addition of contracting officer representative instruction, and selection processes for instructors. In the Engineer Captains Career Course–

Reserve Component, a pilot program restructuring and enhancing project management instruction can result in nationally recognized project management certification. The Engineer 

School partnership with the Missouri University of Science 

and Technology has also been enhanced by including Reserve 

Component students. The flywheel is beginning to turn.

Way Ahead

Engineer Leader Technical Competency is an issue 

that is broad and deep, since it addresses a capability of the military and the nation. Contributions from 

all levels of military and civilian engineer leaders are both 

welcome and needed. A series of briefings, in-progress video teleconferences, and presentations at applicable forums 

are planned. Obtaining and sharing additional information 

can be accomplished via Army Knowledge Online (AKO).

E-mail Major Mark Conrad at <mark.aaron.conrad@us.army.

mil> to be added to the access list. Then enter <https://www.

us.army.mil/suite/submitdraft.do?$c=0&$p=504789> to find

a specific working group’s point of contact to contribute 

to this effort. As with many efforts, this is not the primary

mission of any individual, but contributions from across the 

Engineer Regiment in numerous areas of expertise can make 

a difference and move the flywheel. 

Engineer Leader Technical Competency will be a major 

focus for discussion and breakout groups during the annual 

ENFORCE conference to be held in St. Louis and Fort Leonard Wood from 4–10 May 2008. The conference theme is 

“Building Great Engineers” for full-spectrum operations. The 

book Good to Great by Jim Collins will be the theoretical 

construct. We hope you will engage, write papers, and join us 

at ENFORCE!

Colonel Meyer is the Director of Training and Leader Development at the United States Army Engineer School, Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri. He is a graduate of the United 

States Military Academy and has had two tours at West Point. 

He holds a master’s in chemical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Brigadier General Martin is the Commandant of the United 

States Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. 

He has served in a wide variety of command and staff assignments, including instructor duty at West Point and the Army 

War College and Commander of the 130th Engineer Brigade, 

during full-spectrum operations in Europe, Kuwait, and Iraq 

from 2002- 2004. He is a graduate of the United States Military Academy, Command and General Staff College, and the 

Naval and Army War Colleges. He holds a master’s and a 

doctorate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Endnotes

1

 Paraphrase from Jim Collins, Good to Great, HarperBusiness, New York, 2001.

2

 Statistical data from OEMA.

A Soldier operates a compact roller to smooth out dirt for roads and parking surfaces.
8 Engineer January-March 2008

Lead the way. The phrase is not new to Reserve 

Component (RC) engineer officers. As the Regiment 

continues to support the War on Terrorism, RC officers 

are expected to be leaders in their communities or industries 

one day and on the cutting edge of maneuver support and 

protection operations the next. Army National Guard and 

United States Army Reserve engineers are now involved in 

a nation-building and reconstruction effort unlike any since 

the reconstruction of Europe and Japan following World 

War II. Technical skills—especially in construction project 

management (PM) and contract administration—are sorely 

needed. Since its inception, the United States Army Engineer 

School has provided an overview of construction methods, 

and currently does so in its Basic Officer Leader Course, the 

Engineer Captains Career Course (ECCC), and the Engineer 

Captains Career Course–Reserve Component (ECCC-RC). 

Officers in the field have asked for more such training and 

ECCC-RC is moving to deliver.

Since 13 December 1636, when the oldest Army 

engineer unit (now designated the 101st Engineer Battalion, 

Massachusetts Army National Guard) was organized by 

the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the Engineer Regiment has 

supported our country with full-spectrum engineer operations. 

The ability of engineer officers to provide the technical 

expertise to fulfill the needs of the nation has sometimes been 

questioned. This has been mainly a process of self-reflection 

to assess the engineers’ abilities and ensure that they can meet 

operational needs. The Regiment has again reached a point 

of questioning its ability to meet the technical competencies 

needed to fulfill today’s operational requirements. 

ECCC-RC Changes

Two of the engineer technical competency areas being 

questioned today are—

P 

PM skills.

Contracting officer representative (COR) or fiscal

responsibility training. 

As a result, starting 1 October 2009, the following seven 

changes to the ECCC-RC will be instituted:

Change 1

Add a COR course to Phase II. A 40-hour block of instruction via distributed learning (dL) will cover the complete 

COR course, and completion will be required before attending 

Phase III. All students will receive Army COR certification 

from this block of instruction. The course will be taught once 

each quarter via the Engineer School Blackboard system and 

will have live feedback from the instructor. This instruction is 

being added without the allocation of any additional resources. 

We have already received requests from RC officers who are 

not currently enrolled in ECCC-RC to receive this training, 

and the staff is working to obtain the resources necessary to 

implement this training for all RC engineer officers. A pilot 

course will be conducted during the fourth quarter of fiscal 

year (FY) 2008, and earlier ECCC-RC graduates will be 

given the opportunity to participate. 

Change 2

Enhance the infrastructure reconnaissance (IR) training 

during Phase III. A critical task to providing engineer support 

■

■

By Lieutenant Colonel Steven K. Knutzen and Major James L. Bunch

ECCC–RC Improves Technical

Competency
January-March 2008 Engineer 9

during stability operations is conducting a thorough IR. 

Currently, warrant officers receive training on a tool called 

“It Knows Everything,” or IKE, which facilitates rapid 

integration of IR data, coupled with a reachback capability 

and reporting and analysis functions. Starting in the first 

quarter of FY 2009, a full day of IR instruction using IKE 

will be provided using local community infrastructure. Tasks 

to be trained are as follows:

Introduction to IR (2.5 hours)

It Knows Everything (2 hours)

Hands-On IR Practical Exercise (5.5 hours)

Change 3

Add 1-hour blocks of instruction on the history of combat 

engineering and civil works engineering. This will serve as 

an introduction to the branch to facilitate inclusion of officers 

seeking branch transfer to the Engineer Regiment. These 

lessons have already been piloted and will be taught during 

Phase III, effective immediately.

Change 4

Add an introduction to engineer personnel and equipment 

to Phase III. A 4-hour overview of engineer equipment 

and personnel will familiarize officers with the equipment 

that will be discussed and integrated into tactical plans for 

the remainder of Phase III. Equipment demonstrations and 

subject matter expert interaction will be used when possible. 

This instruction is intended to serve as refresher training to 

students returning to the Engineer School and as a first-time 

overview for branch-transfer officers. Full implementation of 

this training will begin in FY 2009. 

Change 5

Restructure and enhance PM instruction. This will align 

with the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) 

developed by the Project Management Institute (PMI). A

35-hour dL module will be added to Phase IV, along with 

an optional 35-hour advanced PM module. The training will 

allow officers to sit for the PMI Certified Associate in Project 

Management/Project Manager Professional exams to earn 

certification, depending on PM experience. A pilot course will 

run during the fourth quarter of FY 2008, and recent ECCCRC graduates will be notified and invited to participate. 

Full implementation will begin in FY 2009. New PM topics 

include the following: 

Introduction to PM (2.5 hours)

Project Life Cycles and Stakeholders (2 hours)

Introduction to Project Process Groups and Initiating

a Project (1.5 hours)

Project Planning (2.5 hours)

Executing, Monitoring, Controlling, and Closing a Project

(1.5 hours)

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Initiating a Project and Preparing the Project Plan

(2.5 hours)

Planning Project Scope (1.5 hours)

Project Scheduling (3.0 hours)

Estimating Activity Costs (1.5 hours)

Planning for Quality (2.0 hours)

Communications Planning and Information Distribution

(2.5 hours)

Planning and Identifying Project Risk (2.5 hours)

PM Practical Exercise (10 hours)

Change 6

Add 10 hours of “hands-on” PM training and a 12-hour 

construction capstone exercise to Phase V. PM training will 

provide reinforcement training to the Phase IV PM instruction 

through a 10-hour practical exercise using Microsoft® Project 

and the Theater Construction Management System (TCMS). 

This will lead into the 12-hour construction capstone exercise, 

a military decision-making process-driven engineer battalion 

planning exercise. Additional instruction will also be provided 

on force protection and environmental laws. 

Change 7

Add counterinsurgency/urban operations instruction to 

Phase V. Training will include the following topics, which 

will be integrated with the capstone combined arms exercise 

scenario: 

History of Counterinsurgency (1 hour)

Urban Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield

(1.5 hours)

Urban Operations Practical Exercise (3 hours)

Summary

Support of full-spectrum operations requires highly 

trained RC engineer officers, and ECCC-RC has 

been updated to meet the growing complexity of the 

problems faced by the Regiment. Though not the complete 

answer to the overwhelming requests for more technical 

training, the revisions to ECCC-RC represent a large step in 

the right direction. It is an exciting time to be an engineer 

officer, and RC engineers are leading the way!

For more information about the changes to ECCC-RC,

e-mail Major Bunch at <james.bunch@us.army.mil>.

Lieutenant Colonel Knutzen is the Deputy Assistant 

Commandant–Army National Guard, for the United States 

Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Major Bunch is the Division Chief, Engineer Captains 

Career Course–Reserve Component, for the Department of 

Instruction at the United States Army Engineer School, Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri.

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■
10 Engineer January-March 2008

I

t is an exciting time to be an engineer officer. Given the 

enormous surge in construction in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

technical skills for engineer officers have never been in 

greater demand. The United States Army Engineer School 

at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, offers an overview of 

construction methods in the Basic Officer Leader Course, the 

Engineer Captains Career Course (ECCC), and the Engineer 

Captains Career Course–Reserve Component (ECCC-RC). 

However, many of the technical skills needed to manage 

complex projects are gained only through civilian education. 

The Engineer School and the Missouri University of Science 

and Technology (Missouri S&T) at Rolla, Missouri, provide a 

way for engineer officers to hone their technical skills.

Since 1984, the Engineer School has partnered with 

Missouri S&T (formerly known as the University of 

Missouri–Rolla) to give Active Army officers the opportunity 

to earn master’s degrees in engineering management or civil, 

environmental, or geological engineering while attending 

ECCC. Officers are granted eight hours of graduate credit for 

satisfactorily completing ECCC, which is applied—along with 

an additional four-credit course taken in the evenings—toward a 

graduate certificate in either military construction management 

or military geological engineering. Upon completion of the 

graduate certificate requirements and ECCC, these officers 

are allowed to remain at Fort Leonard Wood on permissive 

temporary duty for 16 weeks to complete the remaining

18 credits required to earn a master’s degree. Officers are 

assessed a special Fort Leonard Wood tuition rate and are not 

required to pay for the eight hours of shared credit. 

Reserve Component Opportunity

Hundreds of Active Army engineer officers have 

taken advantage of this program since its inception. 

Now, recognizing the significant number of engineer 

officers who are in the Army Reserve or National Guard, 

the Engineer School announces the addition of Reserve 

Component (RC) officers to the educational partnership with

Missouri S&T. The RC programs will be structured similar 

to the Active Army programs, with the Missouri S&T portion 

being offered via distributed learning (dL). RC officers will 

receive eight credits for satisfactorily completing ECCC-RC, 

which will be combined with a four-credit course offered by 

Missouri S&T via dL to earn a graduate certificate in either

military construction management or military geological 

engineering. Officers who have an undergraduate degree in 

either engineering or natural science disciplines will be able 

to apply the certificate in military construction management 

toward Missouri S&T’s online master of science degree 

in civil engineering or engineering management and the 

certificate in military geological engineering toward the 

master of engineering in geotechnics. 

Currently, all these programs are being offered online as 

part of Missouri S&T’s Distance and Continuing Education 

(DCE) program. For these traditional dL programs, officers 

will be assessed the special Fort Leonard Wood tuition rate 

New Opportunity for RC Officers

By Lieutenant Colonel Steven K. Knutzen and Major James L. Bunch

The Missouri University of Science and Technology 

(Missouri S&T), formerly known as the University of

Missouri–Rolla, has provided Active Army officers cooperative degrees since 1984.

to Earn Engineering Master’s Degree
January-March 2008 Engineer 11

for the four credits required to complete the certificate and 

will not be required to pay for the eight hours of shared credit. 

Tuition and fees for the remaining 18 credits will be assessed 

according to existing DCE policies. 

Recognizing that a large number of engineer officers don’t 

have the prerequisites to get into these existing programs, 

the Missouri S&T Department of Geological Sciences and 

Engineering has custom-designed a master’s degree program 

in geological engineering for RC officers. In effect, this 

program will be similar to the 

traditional dL programs, with two 

significant differences. First, this 

program will be assessed the same 

tuition and fees as the resident Fort 

Leonard Wood program. It will be 

offered directly by the Department 

of Geological Sciences and Engineering via its Blackboard dL 

platform. Second, the remaining 

18 credits will be provided during 

compressed semesters to allow 

completion of the entire program 

within one year. It is the hope 

of both Missouri S&T and the 

Engineer School that officers who 

have not yet earned the degree 

in engineering or engineering 

management necessary to work as 

a facilities/contract construction 

management engineer will use this 

opportunity to earn the credential.

Although similar to the programs already mentioned, the 

custom-designed geological engineering program will be 

accomplished in three stages:

Stage I

Admission to the Stage I program (graduate certificate in 

military geological engineering) requires officers to submit an 

application and provide a copy of their ECCC-RC Phase IV 

(general engineering) completion certificate, in addition to an 

Inspecting 

dams is a 

typical task for 

a geological 

engineer.

A subsurface exploration class observes a municipal well being drilled in Rolla, 

Missouri.
12 Engineer January-March 2008

official transcript showing proof of having completed 

at least one semester of college algebra, college 

chemistry, and either a college biology or physics 

course. Officers who do not have the prerequisite 

college courses may be required to take a five-credit 

bridging course, also provided by the Department 

of Geological Sciences and Engineering at the same 

tuition rate, which is included to ensure that every 

officer will succeed in the program. 

Once admitted to the certificate program, officers 

will be required to complete four credits of online 

course work, which will be offered during Missouri 

S&T’s normal spring, summer, and fall semesters. Upon 

completion of the introductory course, officers will be 

awarded a certificate in military geological engineering. 

Officers will be given credit for the following courses 

upon satisfying all Stage I requirements: 

Geomorphology and Terrain Analysis

Geologic Field Methods

Engineering Geology and Geotechnics

Applied Geological Engineering

Officers who have already completed a legacy 

advanced course or career course will be allowed to 

participate in the program by enrolling and completing 

ECCC-RC Phase IV (general engineering) as part of 

their admission requirements.

Stage II

Officers must apply, but they will be granted acceptance 

into Stage II of the program without the usual Graduate 

Record Examination if they complete Stage I with a letter 

grade of “B” or better. Stage II will consist of completing

15 credits of coursework, of which two three-credit classes 

will be offered during each special 8-week semester. 

Stage II courses can be taken in any order, with Stage I 

completion being the only prerequisite. The following courses 

will be completed during Stage II: 

Remote Sensing Technology

Advanced Concepts of Environmental Geological 

Engineering

Geotechnical Construction Practice

Subsurface Exploration

Subsurface Hydrology

Stage III

Stage III of the program will serve as the capstone 

exercise and will consist of a three-credit, regular semester 

course entitled Capstone Project in Geological Engineering. 

Officers will only be admitted into Stage III during their final 

semester of study because successful completion depends on 

knowledge acquired in previous stages. 

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Cutting Edge Problem-Solving

As students in the program, officers will have 

the opportunity to learn about the application 

of earth science principles to the engineering 

solution of critical problems facing global society, such 

as environmental and hazardous waste issues, natural 

resource protection and energy sustainability, and the 

design of geotechnical infrastructure such as tunnels, 

excavations, dams, and waste disposal sites. Geological 

engineering is a very broad engineering discipline 

focusing on applications of geology and engineering 

fundamentals to solve problems. Geological engineers 

apply their unique set of skills to protect and preserve the 

environment in which we live, studying geological hazards 

such as landslides, rock falls, earthquakes, Karst features 

(which create sinkholes), and dam and levee failures 

such as those in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. 

Geological engineers are called upon to study and clean up 

contaminated sites, develop water supply wells, and map 

hazards using geographical information systems. Across 

a wide spectrum of global problems, geological engineers 

are on the cutting edge of engineering problem-solving. For 

more information on the geological engineering profession, 

visit the Missouri S&T Geological Engineering website at

<http://web.mst.edu/~gee/>. 

Engineer officers study rock formations as part of a geological 

field trip.
January-March 2008 Engineer 13

To get started in the program, an RC officer must enroll 

in and complete the requirements for Phase IV of ECCCRC. Officers will be briefed about the program during their 

ECCC-RC resident Phase III and be placed on a list of 

potential candidates so they can start receiving information 

regarding the program. Upon completion of ECCC-RC Phase 

IV, officers can present their Phase IV completion certificate 

and apply for the graduate certificate program. Once they 

have completed the introductory course and ECCC-RC, they 

can apply for admission to the program. Officers will then 

complete Stage II and Stage III and earn their master’s in 

geological engineering. It is that easy! 

Officers interested in the RC programs in the traditional 

disciplines of engineering management, civil engineering, 

or geotechnics should contact Lahne Black at <lahne@

mst.edu> or at (800) 441-5218 or visit the Missouri S&T 

DCE website at <http://dce.mst.edu/index.html>. Officers 

interested in the custom-designed program in geological 

engineering should contact the Missouri S&T Department 

of Geological Sciences and Engineering RC Program 

coordinator at <flwgee@mst.edu> or visit the program 

website at <http://mst.edu/~flwgee>. For questions about 

ECCC-RC, contact Major Bunch at <james.bunch@us.army.

mil>.

Future Opportunities

Engineering technical skills training has now been 

placed at the fingertips of the RC officer, and this 

is just the beginning. Missouri S&T has agreed 

to study the possibility of offering similar programs to 

engineer warrant officers and noncommissioned officers with 

undergraduate degrees, as well as Department of the Army 

civilian employees who work as part of the Regiment. These 

programs will be the subjects of future articles in Engineer.

Lieutenant Colonel Knutzen is the Deputy Assistant 

Commandant–Army National Guard, for the United States 

Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Major Bunch is the Division Chief, Engineer Captains 

Career Course–Reserve Component, for the Department of 

Instruction at the United States Army Engineer School, Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Students gather electrical resistivity data in order to map the subsurface in support of a Missouri Department of 

Transportation study along a highway south of Springfield, Missouri.
14 Engineer January-March 2008

The French Engineer Corps, which has a total of about 

20,000 active duty sappers,1 has three components: 

combat, security, and infrastructure. �These three 

components are interdependent, and all training for them is 

done at the Engineer School in Angers, in western France. It 

is fairly common for an officer to begin his career in a combat 

unit, go to the Paris Fire Brigade for some time, and then 

come back to a combat regiment or move to the infrastructure 

component.

The combat component (the engineer branch) is under the 

command of the Army. It consists of twelve regiments—eight 

embedded in combat brigades, three in the engineer brigade, 

and one attached to the Air Force. Its mission is to provide 

direct and general support to the forces. 

The security component is under the 

control of the Ministry of Interior, which 

is broadly equivalent to the Department of 

Homeland Security. The Paris Fire Brigade 

(consisting of 8,000 personnel) and the 

civilian security units (consisting of 2,000 

personnel) belong to this ministry. The latter 

are responsible for disaster relief and support 

the local firemen. The Fire Brigade has full 

responsibility for the security of the people in 

Paris and intervenes in case of fire, accidents, 

or terrorist attacks. 

The infrastructure component, which is 

equivalent to the United States Army Corps 

of Engineers, has more than 1,000 sappers 

and the same number of civilian employees. 

Called service du � 2 or service, it is 

responsible for the infrastructure, construction, and maintenance for the armed 

services. 

The purpose of this article is to explain 

how the French education system works for 

engineer officers.3 But before talking about 

Technical Training for Officers

 in the French Engineer Corps

By Lieutenant Colonel Philippe Potin

A lieutenant studies a map during a tactical exercise.
January-March 2008 Engineer 15

specialized training, it is necessary to describe the specifics 

of officers in the French Engineer Corps.

The Officer Corps

According to Napoleon Bonaparte, “There is a field 

marshal’s baton in every Soldier’s knapsack.”4 By 

this he meant that even a private can aspire to the 

highest rank. It is not so common now, because there are 

fewer wars, but some generals come from the enlisted ranks, 

and more than 50 percent of officers have come from the 

noncommissioned officer (NCO) corps. Most of them stay in 

the same domain. It is common to see 50-year-old captains 

who are former senior NCOs who were promoted late.

For an NCO, it is possible to be promoted to officer at 

different levels, usually after a selective exam. Junior NCOs 

spend two years in a different 

officer academy before 

going to branch school for 

basic training, but some 

other NCOs who are more 

senior can go directly to the 

branch school. Senior NCOs 

are chosen by the Army for 

promotion to lieutenant, and 

those officers always stay in 

their initial specialty.

Saint Cyr Military 

Academy recruits cadets 

(after they have taken 

an exam) directly from 

universities or preparatory 

classes. Before the exam, it 

is necessary to spend three 

years in college or two in 

preparatory classes. After 

high school, these preparatory 

classes prepare a student 

for the difficult exams, based on mathematics and physics, 

for entering civilian engineer schools that are called “great 

schools.” These schools, which are considered schools for the 

elite, are a unique French institution. Although most of them 

are civil engineer schools in all domains, there are also such 

schools for business or linguists, and they are completely 

separate from the universities. Although they are the preferred 

way to success, they are also the most difficult.

Saint Cyr is a great school, and 40 percent of the cadets 

who attend there receive a mathematics education. When they 

finish the 3-year curriculum, they receive a master’s degree in 

general engineering.

In some specialties (lawyers, linguists, architects), officers 

can be commissioned directly from civilian life if they have 

the required degree. Their military training is short, 2 to

Online language classes help these officers prepare for promotion.

French Engineer Officer Career Path
16 Engineer January-March 2008

4 months, before these specialists become officers in their 

domain. They are considered contract officers, rather than 

career officers like the others. A career officer “owns” his rank, 

which means he can stay in the Army until the retirement age 

limit of his rank,5 even if he is not promoted.

Training for Young Officers

All officers attend basic training at the Engineer School 

in Angers.6 The course there lasts 11 months—from 

September to the end of July. It is a mixture of theory 

and practical exercises in the field, with the objective of training 

lieutenants for their first job as platoon leader. The basis of 

training is combat engineer skills: mobility, countermobility, 

and survivability. After years of peacekeeping operations all 

over the world, the emphasis nowadays is much more on 

demining7 or force protection than on bridging or obstacles, 

as it was 20 years ago. The first phase, which lasts for 8 

months, gives the students a detailed overview of engineer 

subjects. 

Based on their evaluation, the young officers choose their 

first assignment at the beginning of the second phase, which 

lasts for 3 months. Several domains are offered: construction, 

security, bridging, and combat. Even in the combat domain, 

there is a place for specialization. The future platoon leader 

in the Airborne Engineer Regiment goes to jump school. The 

future diver goes to the Navy Diving Center in Toulon, in the 

south of France, before coming back to Angers for engineerspecific training. These 1-year courses are not only long 

but also very demanding. The same is true for students who 

enter the Paris Fire Brigade, where it takes almost a year to 

complete all the qualifications required.

This training gives the student a good knowledge of the 

basic engineering skills required to be a platoon leader. It 

provides the Engineer Corps with multipurpose officers 

who are flexible enough to evolve through different jobs, if 

necessary.

Three or four years later, the officers return to the Engineer 

School for the captain’s course, where the process is similar. 

During the first 4 months, students focus on the generalities of 

company command in the context of a combat unit. The 5th 

month is spent on specialization. Although some training is 

done on-site, other training is done in units, as it is for security. 

For specific training in the Fire Brigade, the officers go to 

Paris. Captains in the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, 

and Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment, which is now attached to the 

Engineer Brigade, take the common training in Angers, then 

move to Draguignan, in the south of France, where the CBRN 

training center is located to complete the training.

In the first part of his career, until he reaches the rank of 

major, an officer can follow other specialized courses, such 

as water treatment or prime power and electricity distribution 

courses, to fulfill a position. Usually, an officer coming from 

Saint Cyr does not take such courses because the hierarchy 

expects this officer to be a future commander, not a specialist. 

Most of the time, these positions are held by experienced 

officers who have been commissioned from the NCO ranks 

and are already specialized in these matters.

Training After Company Command

After company command, there are several ways 

for officers to continue their career in the Army, 

depending on the age and the academic level of each 

officer. 

For staff positions, there is the Staff School in Compiègne, 

north of Paris, where most officers attend a 5-month course 

just after company command. Then, they prepare for the 

exam to enter the Staff College in Paris.8 This is the way to 

prepare for command positions, except for engineers. For an 

engineer officer with a scientific education, there is another 

exam—which is based on mathematics and called the brevet 

technique (BT) or technical brevet—that an officer must pass 

to enter one of the famous great schools in civil engineering. 

A young lieutenant 

works on an engine 

during a prime 

power class.
January-March 2008 Engineer 17

For the Engineer Corps, this is the preferred way because it 

provides qualified officers not only for regimental commands 

but also for district commands in the service. This integration 

in a civilian school can last from 1 to 3 years, depending on 

the school and the curriculum chosen. Afterwards, this officer 

joins his colleagues in the Joint Staff College in Paris.

Only a minority of officers will follow this path, because 

most do not have a high enough academic level to pass the 

exams. But even if an officer fails this type of exam, his career 

is not finished. There are several other career possibilities, 

especially for engineers.

The service offers a lot of positions at different levels: 

surveyors, crew chiefs, project managers, and district and 

division commanders. It has no Soldiers, only NCOs and 

officers,9 and they all come from combat units. The service

is also open to officers coming from other branches, with the 

only condition being that they pass the exam.

The certificate technique (CT) or technical certificate is 

for captains. This 1-year course, which is taught in Angers, 

provides infrastructure officers for the regiments.10 At a 

higher level is the diplôme technique (DT) or technical 

diploma, which is reserved for captains or majors with a good 

background in sciences (a university degree, for example). In

2 years, they can earn a master’s degree in vertical 

construction. If an officer already has a master’s degree, he 

can obtain this master’s in only 1 year. After these courses, 

officers join the service to work in staff positions or as 

project managers. The best officers can expect to command 

a district.

If an officer fails, he still can drop one level below his 

current level—for example, from BT to DT or from DT to 

CT. All of these courses are taught at the Engineer School in 

Angers. This system provides the service du génie with the 

highly professional workforce it needs. For officers who were 

rejected or not attracted to command positions in their branch, 

this system offers new opportunities to continue a career in 

a very different but essential domain. If for any reason the 

engineer officers decide to leave, they will have little problem 

finding a job in the construction industry with their technical 

training.

Conclusion

Since the end of World War II, the French Army has 

built a complex but complete system of professional 

training for officers. It is still evolving11 to adapt to 

changes in the Army and in society. The main disadvantage is 

the length of time that the average officer spends in schools.12

Although it is a heavy load, it is the only way (especially 

in the Engineer Corps) to have experienced and qualified 

officers who are flexible enough to adapt to any position. 

This lengthy training is possible because officers stay on 

duty longer—they can receive a minimum pension only after 

25 years of duty.13 The unemployment rate is still high in 

France, and it is not easy for the average officer to leave the 

Army and find a job. Consequently, most of them choose to 

stay in the Army family. This system is a good investment for 

the Army. Although the courses take a lot of time, the officers 

remain in these specialized positions long enough to make the 

system viable and durable. 

Lieutenant Colonel Potin is the French Liaison Officer 

to the United States Army Maneuver Support Center, Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri. He was previously assigned to 

the French Engineer School in Angers as officer in charge 

of digitization and computer simulation systems. Other 

assignments include military assistant for the chief of staff of 

the Stabilization Force (SFOR), Bosnia; instructor for tactics 

in the Engineer School in Angers, and training company 

command in the 6th Engineer Regiment in Angers. He is 

a graduate of “Ecole Spéciale Militaire de Saint Cyr,” the 

French Military Academy; the Engineer Officer Advanced 

Course, Fort Leonard Wood; and the Belgian Staff College in 

Brussels. He also holds a master’s in construction engineering 

from the “Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées” in Paris.

Endnotes

1

In France, reserve forces are small: one company for each 

regiment, for about 1,000 sappers total.

2

The infrastructure component is called “service du �nie

or “service”; génie is the French word for engineer.

3

For more details, contact the author at Fort Leonard 

Wood : LTC Potin, (573) 563-4027 by telephone, or by e-mail 

at <philippe.potin@us.army.mil>.

4

This is an approximate translation of the original: « tout 

soldat a dans sa giberne son bâton de Maréchal ».

5

For a lieutenant colonel, it is age 57.

6

About 70 lieutenants every year: 20 from Saint Cyr,

25 from the officer academy for NCOs, 10 from the NCO 

corps, 5 from diverse origins, and 10 international students. 

7

In 2007, improvised explosive device (IED) defeat was 

integrated in the program.

8

The Staff College lasts 2 years: 6 months in the Army 

Superior Staff School, 6 months in overseas operation as a 

staff officer, and 1 year in the Joint Staff College in Paris.

9

In 2007, there were 500 officers.

10There is 1 position for each regiment, or 100 total. He is 

responsible for maintaining the infrastructures in a regiment 

and conducting minor construction projects in liaison with 

the local engineer district.

11The last reform, which was in 2007, is too recent to 

observe the consequences on the Engineer Corps.

12I spent 8 years in courses, for 21 years on active duty.

13To receive the maximum pension an officer needs to 

serve more than 30 years, especially if he has no bonus from 

operations or specific assignments.
18 Engineer January-March 2008

I

have been asked to write this article to support the current 

review of technical competence in the United States 

Army Engineer Regiment. In the article, I will describe 

the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) approach to developing the 

leadership and technical skills of the Royal Engineer (RE) 

officers and noncommissioned officers (NCOs), and then 

explain how the UK’s military engineering capability is 

configured on operations. My purpose is not to suggest that 

the UK’s approach is necessarily an applicable model for the 

U. S. Army engineers to adopt—far from it, since our history, 

ethos, missions, and size differ so markedly. However, I hope 

that by offering an alternative perspective on developing and 

managing engineer capability, I am able to contribute to the 

current debate.

Overview of the Royal Engineers

Key Facts

To place the article into context, it is first worth highlighting 

a few facts about the Royal Engineers: 

Size. At just under 9,000 strong, the Corps constitutes approximately 9 percent of the Army. In recent

operations, however, it has comprised 15–25 percent

of any deployed force, and the motto “First In,

Last Out” has never been more applicable.

Joint Approach. The RE mission is to provide engineer

support across defense. In any deployment, the joint task

■

■

force commander has an RE advisor, as does each

component commander. The level of engineer support

allocated to each component is mission-dependent and is

controlled at the operational level.

Military Engineering Focus. In the late 1950s, UK

peacetime civil works responsibilities were transferred

from the Royal Engineers to a civilian agency. As

a result, the Corps’s primary focus over the past

50 years has been the delivery of engineer support

to military operations. 

Full-Spectrum Engineer Capability. All RE Soldiers

are multiskilled—they are Soldiers, combat engineers, 

and artisan tradesmen. A UK engineer battalion1 therefore

has the flexibility to switch from a combat engineer

mission to a construction engineer mission without the

requirement to reorganize or re-equip. 

Specialist Capabilities. The Corps has regiments

that provide specialist engineer capabilities in air assault, 

commando, explosive ordnance disposal (EOD),

search, geographic, and air support (fixed and rotary

wing). Infrastructure engineering tasks at the more

demanding end of the technical spectrum are undertaken by deployable works groups made up of

Specialist Teams Royal Engineers (STREs). 

The full-spectrum engineer capability that the Corps delivers 

is illustrated by the three triangles in Figure 1.

■

■

■

Leadership and Technical Development

in the Corps of Royal Engineers

By Colonel Andrew W. Phillips

Figure 1. Full-Spectrum Engineer Capability
January-March 2008 Engineer 19

Royal Engineer Officer Training

Junior Officer Training

The RE officer intake traditionally consists of approximately 5 percent nongraduates, 35–40 percent engineer 

graduates, and 55–60 percent non-engineer graduates. All 

officers, regardless of their academic qualifications, undertake 

a year of officer training at the Royal Military Academy 

Sandhurst (RMAS), followed by the 27-week Royal Engineer 

Troop Commanders’ Course (RETCC) at the Royal School 

of Military Engineering (RSME). The RETCC is designed to 

equip junior officers with the skills required to command an 

RE troop, and the course consists of the following modules:

11 weeks of combat engineer training that covers the

reconnaissance, planning, and management of combat

engineer tasks.

7 weeks of construction training that covers basic

engineering principles, project management, and aspects

of health and safety. This phase is predominantly

classroom-based but includes practical elements such as

temporary camp reconnaissance and the use of

earthmoving equipment. 

1 week of communications training.

9 weeks of command and leadership training that builds

on the education received at RMAS and concludes with a

2-week confirmatory field training exercise.

Officer Appointments

Career Stage 1 encompasses the first 10 years of an 

officer’s career—from initial appointment to promotion to 

major. On completion of 18 months of initial training, junior 

officers normally undertake an initial tour commanding a 

field troop and a subsequent tour commanding a troop or 

platoon in the training organization. The generic junior officer 

career structure also includes a provision for up to 6 months 

of officer development (leading an adventurous training 

expedition or humanitarian project, for example), although 

operational commitments mean that few young officers are 

currently able to exploit such opportunities. On completion 

of the second junior officer tour and promotion to captain, 

officers normally fill either an adjutant or squadron2 executive 

officer (XO) billet, and the officer’s final tour as a captain is 

normally as a Grade 3 staff officer in either an engineer or 

all-arms headquarters. 

Command and Staff Training

Upon being selected for promotion to major and entering 

Career Stage 2, all officers attend the all-arms Intermediate 

Command and Staff Course (Land) at the UK Defence 

Academy. This training prepares officers for Grade 2 staff 

appointments and sub-unit command which, in the British 

Army, is a field rank appointment. Thereafter, a proportion of 

officers selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel (Career 

Stage 3) attend the Joint Advanced Command and Staff 

■

■

■

■

Course in preparation for Grade 1 staff appointments and 

battalion-level command.

Specialist Officer Training

The generic officer career development profile described 

above is applicable to all officers in the Corps, less those who 

undertake specialist training to provide the professionally 

qualified engineers that the Corps needs to sustain its 

infrastructure and geographic capabilities.3 Annually,

12 senior captains/junior majors (representing approximately

20 percent of the total peer group for that year) are trained as 

chartered engineers (CEng) in either the construction or the 

electrical and mechanical disciplines. �Professional Engineer 

Training (PET) lasts approximately 2 years, and the courses 

are broken down as follows:

7 months of postgraduate study at the RSME: revising

principles; developing design, planning, and contractual

skills; and gaining a broader knowledge of military

infrastructure engineering.

9 months with a civilian contractor.

8 months with a civilian consultant.

Officers who have completed the PET course are then 

eligible to command an STRE (the technical sub-unit), 

although it is not unusual for the higher-caliber PET officers 

to command a mainstream sub-unit, either instead of or in 

addition to an STRE. Following sub-unit command, PET 

officers are eligible to be employed either in mainstream 

or technical staff appointments, but if they are promoted to 

lieutenant colonel on the technical roster, then they are limited 

to employment within the technical field for the remainder 

of their career. Specialist officers have the opportunity to 

command one of the four RE works groups, and the pinnacle 

of the CEng career pyramid is to command the infrastructure 

support engineer group—a colonel’s billet.

The generic officer career model up to sub-unit command, 

highlighting the developmental progression achieved at each 

stage, is shown in Figure 2, page 20.

Royal Engineer Soldier Training

Initial Soldier Training

Initial training for all RE Soldiers is broken into 3 phases:

Phase 1: 10 weeks of basic Soldier training.

Phase 2A: 10 weeks of combat engineer training.

Phase 2B: 6–15 months of Class 2 artisan trade training, 

the length of the course being dependent on the Soldier’s

trade.

Follow-On Training

Having completed initial training—sometimes lasting as 

long as 18 months—Soldiers normally serve 3–5 years in their 

first unit. During this tour, they normally complete a junior 

■

■

■

■

■

■
20 Engineer January-March 2008

NCO (JNCO) leadership cadre to determine their suitability 

for promotion; thereafter, they are required to complete both 

generic and occupational-specific command, leadership, 

and management courses at each stage of their career as a 

prerequisite for further promotion. All RE Soldiers must also 

gain a Class 1 artisan trade qualification and a Class 1 combat 

engineer qualification before being eligible for promotion 

to corporal. Class 1 trade courses last about 6 months, and 

Soldiers identified as having technical aptitude are then 

considered for clerk of works training.

Clerk of Works Training

The RSME has the capacity to train up to 24 JNCOs/senior 

NCOs (SNCOs) per year to become clerks of works construction,4 

electrical, or mechanical. Clerks of works are responsible for 

planning and managing technical projects and for providing 

detailed technical advice in their specialist field. The Clerk of 

Works Course is just under 2 years in length and comprises

4 months of science and math, 18 months of engineering design, 

and a 6-week attachment to industry. All clerks of works are 

promoted to staff sergeant on completion of the course and 

have a clearly defined career path to warrant officer Class 1, 

with a very strong chance of commissioning thereafter.

Engineer Support to Operations

Close and General Support Engineering

Engineer support to a maneuver brigade is provided by a close 

support (CS) engineer regiment (a U.S. battalion equivalent). 

The regiment lives and trains with the brigade in peacetime and, 

in addition to commanding the unit, the commanding officer 

is also the brigade commander’s engineer advisor. As already 

highlighted, a CS engineer regiment is able to provide fullspectrum support to the brigade, from high-intensity combat 

engineer operations at one end to CS infrastructure engineering 

at the other. Engineer support at the divisional level is provided 

by a general support (GS) engineer regiment, and all the engineer 

assets with the division are commanded by a Commander Royal 

Engineers (CRE), a colonel who is the divisional commander’s 

engineer advisor. It is worth noting that the current configuration 

for engineer support (CS and GS/engineer regiment supporting 

a brigade) was introduced in the early 1990s when it became 

apparent that the existing structure, which entailed an engineer 

squadron (a U.S. company equivalent) supporting a brigade, 

was unable to deliver the level of engineer advice, or the 

concentration of engineer capability, required by all-arms units 

and formations.

Figure 2. Generic Royal Engineer Officer Career Progression Model

(Continued on page 27)
January-March 2008 Engineer 21

The president’s 2006 National Security Strategy (NSS) 

stressed a policy to seek and support democratic 

movements and institutions in every nation and 

culture. The NSS is founded on two pillars:

To promote freedom, justice, and human dignity; work to 

end tyranny and encourage effective democracies; and 

extend prosperity through fair trade and wise development

policies. 

To confront today’s challenges by leading a growing 

community of democracies.1

An important element in fulfilling and shaping the pillars 

of the NSS in the international environment is the operational 

effectiveness of joint military engineers in conducting combat 

operations and humanitarian assistance. Trends from the 

conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and from the past decade 

show that the United States—together with its international 

partners—must have the capacity to manage two or three 

reconstruction and stabilization operations concurrently.2

Joint military engineers have a long history of heavy 

engagement in activities such as United States Southern 

Command’s Operation Fuertes Caminos, a wide range of 

assistance to Panama, and the responses to the 2004 Indian 

Ocean tsunami and 2005 Pakistan earthquake. Engineers 

provide civic assistance, support, stability and reconstruction 

operations, development projects for critical infrastructure, 

and the further development of the natural resources of other 

countries. Engineers from all the military Services provide 

unique capabilities in all these endeavors and are well-suited 

to organize and execute these missions to fulfill the NSS.

To accomplish this, joint military engineers must develop 

a supporting strategy to become increasingly flexible, thus 

providing the full spectrum of military engineering required 

by leaders from the president down to the joint task force 

commander. Joint military engineering is unique in that it 

can operate and support strategic, operational, and tactical 

objectives. Unlike any other group, joint military engineers 

typically support and enable both operational and sustainment 

■

■

functions, as well as all the instruments of national power. To 

be more effective, the number of military engineers should be 

increased, and a reorganization of engineer commands should 

be considered.

Successful strategic military joint engineering can be seen 

in Iraq today with the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) Gulf Region Division (GRD). The mission of the 

GRD and its partners in the Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command (NAVFAC) and Air Force Civil Engineer Support 

Agency (AFCESA) is to provide high-quality, responsive, 

full-spectrum engineering services in Iraq in support of 

military and civil construction, logistical services, and 

aggressive assistance to the Iraqi government so it can assume 

full responsibility for national reconstruction.3

Joint Engineers as Shapers

Using the joint military engineer force to shape the 

international community can be extremely effective 

in fighting poverty, increasing economic growth, 

and promoting democracy by helping governments make 

better use of their own countries’ resources. Engineers 

shape the security environment by supporting the combatant 

commander’s vision. They engage other nations by 

working with allies, as well as potential coalition partners, 

by participating in international exercises and supporting 

stability operations in foreign countries. Engineers can 

often lead combatant commander engagement initiatives 

through ministry-level contact, military-to-military contact, 

instruction, and construction projects.4 For example, USACE 

was designated by the Department of Defense (DOD) to 

be the executive agent in extinguishing the oil fires in Iraq 

during the 2003 invasion. USACE was able to extinguish 

a number of oil fires during initial operations and has since 

awarded contracts to sustain Iraq’s oil infrastructure, which 

is the country’s main economic resource.5 The National 

Response Plan also identifies USACE as the primary agency 

for providing Emergency Support Function #3-2 (technical 

assistance, engineering, and construction management 

resources and support during response activities).6

Joint Engineering 

By Major John P. Lloyd

Strategy

Photos courtesy Society of American Military Engineers
22 Engineer January-March 2008

Historic Joint Military Engineering

J

oint military engineering has been involved in every 

major conflict from World War II to present-day 

operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also assisted 

with Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts and is involved in 

Homeland Security.

World War II

During the 6 June 1944 Normandy invasion, the United 

States Navy Seabees were among the first to go ashore as 

members of naval combat demolition units. Working with 

United States Army engineers, their primary task was to 

destroy the steel and concrete barriers that the Germans 

had built in the water and on the beaches to forestall Allied 

amphibious landings.7

Vietnam

Based on a 1965 memo from Robert S. McNamara, 

Secretary of Defense, to Harold Brown, Secretary of the 

United States Air Force, a study was conducted that led to 

the development of the United States Air Force Prime Base 

Engineer Emergency Force (Prime BEEF) units.8 These units 

worked alongside United States Army and Navy engineers to 

build or improve airfields that supported strategic bombings 

in North Vietnam. Projects included improved beddown and 

maintenance facilities for crews and aircraft.

Haiti

In September 1994, the 20th Engineer Brigade from Fort 

Bragg, North Carolina, deployed to Haiti as Task Force Castle, 

a joint military engineer task force. The brigade conducted 

a number of decisive engineer operations that included the 

construction of base camps, restoration of electrical power 

directly benefiting the local populace, construction of a landfill 

on Soleil, refurbishment of an academy for the International 

Criminal Investigators Training Assistance, construction 

of a marketplace that supported hundreds of vendors, improvements to local schools, and removal of garbage as part 

of the national cleaning fervor in Haiti.9

Bosnia

Military engineers played a major role in Bosnia with 

the initial bridge construction across the Sava River, which 

allowed 1st Armored Division forces to enter the country. 

The 1st Armored Division Engineer Brigade formed a 

joint military engineer task force that built more than 24 

base camps to support the 28,000 North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (NATO) peacekeeping forces monitoring the 

Dayton Accords. Engineers supported the NATO mission 

by improving roads and removing explosive hazards such as 

mines and unexploded ordnance.

Tactical and Technical Implementation

The national strategic engineering assets of USACE, 

NAVFAC, and the Air Force Center for Engineering 

and the Environment (AFCEE) will be vital in 

implementing the NSS. The increased capability of the 

Office of the Secretary of State/Office of the Coordinator for 

Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS) will allow for an 

integrated civilian and military response that is agile, flexible, 

scalable, and able to build on lessons learned. According to 

Joint Publication 3-34, Joint Engineer Operations, USACE 

and NAVFAC are the principal engineer organizations to 

plan, design, construct, and acquire facilities and real estate 

for DOD.10 Joint military engineering will play a vital role in 

supporting the Department of Homeland Security and its three 

national priorities of preventing terrorist attacks within the 

United States, reducing America’s vulnerability to terrorism, 

and minimizing the damage and facilitating the recovery from 

attacks that might occur.11

Joint military engineers support this strategy by working 

with organizations such as United States Northern Command’s 

Joint Task Force North to prevent transnational threats to the 

homeland. This includes using engineer units for construction 

along the Mexico-U.S. border to increase law enforcement’s 

ability to fight illegal drugs. It also assists law enforcement 

agencies with combating illegal immigration, as outlined in 

Chapter Eight of the 2006 NSS. Joint Task Force North’s 

engineering and surveillance projects have contributed 

to hardening the border, and halting “alien smuggling 

organizations” is among its stated goals. It provides a model 

for the kinds of projects the National Guard will be expected 

to undertake as the Bush administration implements its 

controversial plan to strengthen the southern frontier. One 

such project can be found in the hills east of San Diego, 

California, where active duty United States Marine Corps 

engineers teamed with a Maryland Army National Guard unit 

to build an access road.12

The border security and illegal immigration issue remains 

a top strategic issue for the United States and Mexico. The 

National Guard is playing a huge role in border security. The 

United States depends on the National Guard—especially its 

engineer forces—as part of the Total Force concept. More 

than 60 percent of the military’s engineer force resides in 

the National Guard and Reserves, and they will continue 

to be a strategic asset in improving the nation’s borders. 

National Guard officials in San Diego say that much is being 

accomplished, and they point to engineers who are working 

on projects such as a secondary border fence. In the next year, 

they are scheduled to build drainage structures and a stretch of 

all-weather road in the western part of the San Diego border 

area; gates and fencing in the eastern portion; and fencing at 

Campo, about 60 miles east of San Diego.13

Conclusion

J

oint military engineers bring unique capabilities that 

support reconstruction efforts and nation-building along 

with all other elements of national power. Military 

engineers are experienced at interagency support and in 

leveraging nonmilitary and nongovernmental engineer assets 

to support mission accomplishment.14 While transformation 
January-March 2008 Engineer 23

has reduced much of the military engineer forces, a strategy 

must be developed to ensure that military engineer capabilities 

are maintained and that joint force commanders understand 

the employment of those capabilities. Joint military engineers 

must develop a strategy that supports the way ahead as 

outlined by the administration’s strategy in Chapter 4 of the 

NSS. This strategy includes three levels of engagement:

Conflict prevention and resolution.

Conflict intervention.

Post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction.

Chapter 9 focuses on the same strategy in the way ahead 

in improving the capability to plan and respond to postconflict situations.15 The S/CRS is responsible for integrating 

U.S. government resources and assets, including military 

engineers. Military engineers must continue to work closely 

with the Department of State to achieve national objectives. 

The S/CRS identifies two goals for engineers:

Be responsive to immediate needs, which is the

assessment of existing facilities for post-conflict needs. 

Establish the foundation for development, which includes the construction of facilities to promote

governance, commerce, and social well-being.16

As the S/CRS continues to grow, its capability will 

bring added value in developing policy and strategy for 

reconstruction efforts. The S/CRS currently has one USACE 

liaison assigned to its staff and will need to expand the 

numbers of its military members to ensure that capabilities 

and resources are managed across the full spectrum of 

contingencies from civil war to natural disaster. An S/CRS 

representative would be a vital member in the joint military 

engineer headquarters as an interface with in-country teams 

who understand host nation reconstruction capabilities.

Just as DOD is increasing the number of Special Forces 

operators and units, it should study the joint military engineer 

force and increase the number of units and engineers in all the 

military services. Like the Special Forces, military engineers 

provide support across all six phases of an operation and 

provide tactical, operational, and strategic engineering to 

the president, combatant commanders, and joint task force 

commanders. The Quadrennial Defense Review and followon Strategic Planning Guidance emphasized the need to 

continue to build on DOD’s capability-based planning 

and management. The Joint Operational Engineer Board 

may need to develop a joint military engineer strategy as it 

builds the Capability Portfolio Management for Operational 

Engineering. To maximize effectiveness, DOD may need 

to develop an “Engineer Command” that is similar to the 

proposed “Medical Command” that would combine the 

medical capabilities of all the Services into one command.17

Doing so would ensure that military engineers would be able 

to significantly contribute to the achievement of national 

goals by overseeing and coordinating the effects of engineer 

forces from all Services.

■

■

■

■

■

Major Lloyd is the senior operations officer for current 

operations for MNC-I, Iraq, and XVIII Airborne Corps, 

Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Other assignments include 

Commander, 175th Topographic Engineer Company, Fort

Bragg; 14th Combat Engineer Battalion, Fort Lewis, 

Washington; 20th Engineer Brigade, Fort Bragg; and 

deputy maneuver support trainer, Fort Irwin, California. He 

is a graduate of the Engineer Officer Basic and Advanced 

Courses and the Joint Advanced Warfighting School and 

holds a master’s in joint campaign planning and strategy 

from National Defense University.

Endnotes

1

 George W. Bush, National Security Strategy (NSS) of the 

United States of America, 2006.

2

 Department of State Office of Reconstruction and 

Stabilization website at <http://www.state.gov/s/crs/>.

3

 USACE website <http://www.usace.army.mil/>, Accessed 

18 October 2006.

4

 FM 3-34, Engineer Operations, 2 January 2004, pp. 1-16.

5

 DOD Release No. 146-03, “Army Named Executive Agent 

for Combating Iraq Oil Fires,” <http://www.defenselink.mil/

releases/release.aspx?releaseid=3679>, 24 March 2003.

6

 National Response Plan, Emergency Support Function #3-2, 

Department of Homeland Security, December 2004. 

7

 Seabee website, “Formation of the Seabees and World War 

II,” <http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq67-3.htm>.

8

 Red Horse History, <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/

agency/usaf/red-horse.htm>.

9

 Captain Darren Klemens and Captain Kelly Slaven, “Task 

Force Castle: Joint Engineer Operations in Haiti,” Engineer, 

Vol. 24, No. 1-2, April 1995, pp. 36-43.

10 Joint Publication, (JP) 3-34, Engineer Doctrine for Joint 

Operations, Government Printing Office, 5 July 2000.

11 NSS, 2006. p. 43.

12 Stew Magnuson, “Troops Use Frontier for Real-World 

Training,” National Defense Online, July 2006, <http://

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/july/Troops

UseFrontier.htm>.

13 San Francisco Chronicle, “National Guard Works the 

Border,” <https://webnet.jfsc.ndu.edu/http/0/ebird.afis.mil/

ebfiles/e20061024aaindex.html>.

14 FM 3-34, pg. 1-2.

15 NSS, 2006. pp. 15-16, 44-45.

16 Department of State Office of Reconstruction and 

Stabilization website at <http://www.state.gov/s/crs/>.

17 Navy Times, “Medical Merger,” 25 September 2006,

pp. 14-15, 31.
24 Engineer January-March 2008

Current theater operations necessitate the integration of 

all Service engineers if full-spectrum joint engineer 

functions are to be attained. From combat to general 

engineering, our engineer Services are sharing the battlefield 

and expanding their capabilities to address a broad range of 

planning and execution efforts. Joint engineer planning can 

include simultaneous planning for an extreme range of engineer requirements, to include—

Combat mission planning support.

Improvised explosive device (IED) defeat.

Base camp planning and development. 

Contingency contracting. 

Infrastructure assessment. 

Reachback capability utilization. 

Construction management. 

Contractor and industry relations. 

Reconstruction and stabilization engineer operations,

including joint interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational (JIIM) support. 

Humanitarian operations support. 

Joint engineer planning is the key to bridging the gap in 

full-spectrum engineer operations. Engineering capabilities 

from across the Services are uniting to bring high degrees of 

expertise to theater mission planning. Engineers are no longer 

able to maintain Service-centric focus areas. The entire theater is now the focus. Thus, it requires an expanded engineer 

knowledge and skill base, increased training, and the ability 

to execute large-scale theater operations. Current engineering missions indicate a demand of such magnitude that it will 

require all U.S. engineer forces to support the joint mission. 

The force multiplier in joint engineer theater operations is 

having technically and tactically competent engineers who 

comprehend the expertise and capabilities the joint engineer 

Services and their civilian counterparts bring to bear.

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Joint Training Initiatives

The “way ahead” for joint engineering identifies training and education gaps and promotes the integration of new programs throughout the Services. Engineers 

from all ranks and echelons of operations are identifying the 

joint requirements and training gaps throughout multiple theaters. The Joint Engineer Training and Education Working 

Group, composed of engineer training and education leaders 

from across the Services, is working to mitigate these gaps by 

discussing key joint engineer considerations and the mechanisms to program and integrate them into our training and 

education systems. These senior leaders then take these considerations and recommendations for joint application to the 

Joint Operational Engineering Board (JOEB) to support the 

effort to update existing—or implement future—joint engineer programs. The joint initiatives will help integrate theater 

lessons learned and practical applications into our Services’ 

training and education systems with a joint perspective and 

formalized education. This senior working group has generated five initiatives that address gaps within training and education and joint organizational leadership of engineers and 

point the way ahead in joint engineering:

Joint Engineer Training

Engineer Leader Competency

Joint Engineer Training and Education Center of

Excellence

Construction Leader Exchange Program

Military and Industry Strategic Alliance Program

Joint Engineer Training

In-theater, the joint task force (JTF) engineer cells are using the capabilities of our engineering assets from the joint 

perspective. JTF engineer senior leaders, planners, and mission executors are expected to understand the varied capabilities of joint engineer assets and the roles of civilians on 

the battlefield with them. Joint training encompasses aspects 

■

■

■

■

■

By Ms.Rachel M. Walkenbach

The Joint Engineering

Way Ahead
January-March 2008 Engineer 25

of planning, synchronizing, disseminating, and executing 

the mission. The JOEB established the Joint Engineer Operations Course (JEOC) to answer the call for joint engineer 

training. (See article on page 26 for a JEOC overview.) Designed for noncommissioned officers, warrant officers, and 

officers, JEOC teaches future JTF engineer participants the 

primary elements for joint staff organization, Service engineer capabilities, general engineering, and outside-the-wire 

considerations. JEOC is a two-phase course with a 40-hour 

Distributed Learning (dL) Phase open to all engineers at any 

time for self-development and also serves as the prerequisite 

for the 1-week Resident Phase course, exercising joint engineer comprehension and planning. Beyond JEOC, a wealth of 

joint engineer resources and opportunities await. The efforts 

of the Joint Engineer Training and Education Working Group 

are identifying the future of joint engineer training programs 

and mitigating gaps to establish more effective joint engineer 

programs and better reachback capabilities.

Engineer Leader Competency

Engineers are required to perform simultaneous combat 

and general engineering mission planning while maintaining 

the joint perspective. For those who are both planning and 

executing the operational mission, the engineer knowledge 

requirements are expanding. To prepare our forces for fullspectrum engineer operations, engineers need more crossService engineer training and formalized civil engineer education and training to perform joint duties with technical 

competency. The forward movement for our engineers integrates civil engineer degree programs or professional technical certifications into the military curricula, thus establishing 

technically competent engineers. Achieving engineer leader 

competency requires establishing Service engineers with a 

civil engineer education and technical performance skills. 

They must possess the ability to—

Comprehend the engineering capabilities of the joint

Services. 

Participate in facilities engineering and infrastructure

planning. 

Conduct base camp design and planning. 

Utilize construction management programs. 

Execute contingency contracting and procurement

requirements. 

Establish diplomatic relations. 

Utilize large-scale construction planning knowledge for

outside-the-wire missions. 

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

These skills require the accuracy of formal training and expertise of joint experience in theater operations. The Service 

engineer institutions recognize this requirement and are answering the call to provide support to combatant commanders 

with trained professionals.

Joint Engineer Training and Education Center of

Excellence

The Joint Engineer Training and Education Center of Excellence (JENTEC) concept is derived from the Joint Center 

of Excellence concept and would serve as the training and 

education center for joint engineer training programs. The intent is to implement a greater “joint context” into collective, 

individual, and staff functions to enable engineers to meet 

theater operational requirements. The purpose of the JENTEC is to provide joint engineer Service input and oversight 

to joint programs with participation and recommendations to 

the JOEB and coordinating working groups. The JENTEC 

would encompass three engineering directorates—the Joint 

Engineer Combat Directorate, the General Engineering Training Directorate, and a Joint Education Directorate—to manage the joint engineer courses. Senior engineer training and 

education leaders would oversee joint training and education. 

They would support the establishment of organizations, develop and maintain existing programs established to support 

multi-Service and joint training agreements, and establish and 

maintain joint accredited engineer military education. 

JENTEC would offer full-spectrum joint training opportunities to train engineers and civilian counterparts in all aspects 

of joint engineering. Joint training should include—

Combat leader and training courses.

Accredited joint engineering dL and resident courses.

Assignment-oriented training.

Joint construction management programs.

Joint base camp planning and development programs.

Engineer support to JIIM operations. 

The JENTEC would also support Interservice Training Review Organization (ITRO) growth and provide a joint staffing 

process for the joint and ITRO organizations.

Construction Leader Exchange Program

The Construction Leader Exchange Program is being designed for enlisted personnel, warrant officers, and officers to 

establish expert engineers. They will be capable of providing 

engineer support within combat situations and horizontal and 

■

■

■

■

■

■

(Continued on page 46)

“The intent is to implement a greater ‘joint context’ into 

collective, individual, and staff functions to enable engineers 

to meet theater operational requirements.”
26 Engineer January-March 2008

The 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 Joint Engineer Operations Course 

(JEOC), which was designed by engineers for engineers, will 

bring together engineers from all the Services. Not only will 

they use what they learn in the current operational environment, but they will also use it for future applications to meet 

the challenges faced by engineer forces of the 21st century.

The need for the JEOC is based on guidance from the National Military Strategy, Quadrennial Defense Review, February 2006, 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 set its sights 

on developing engineers who are better prepared and who can 

quickly immerse themselves into the joint task force (JTF) 

and its ongoing campaign. 

Course Description

The JEOC is a two-phase course designed for selected 

engineer officers (senior 0-3s and junior 0-4s), senior 

noncommissioned officers, warrant officers, and government civilians who may serve on a joint staff.

Distributed Learning Phase

The JEOC Distributed Learning (dL) Phase is open to all 

engineers for self-development in JTF engineer operations. 

It is a self-paced, self-development course consisting of 

current information in support of joint engineer operations. 

Joint engineers from across the Services and from combatant commands abroad have participated in the development 

of this course and its resources. An Army Knowledge Online (AKO) account is required for enrollment, but joint 

Service members will be sponsored for an AKO account in 

order to enroll in the course. The dL Phase is designed to be

40 to 48 hours and, although there is no obligation for completing the course after enrollment, a dL course certificate (good 

for one year after completion) is a prerequisite for attending 

the second phase, which is the Resident Phase. A student may 

elect to complete the JEOC dL Phase only, but the interaction 

and collaboration with students of other Services at the Resident Phase play a big factor in the success of JEOC. 

The dL Phase consists of seven modules with associated 

lessons that introduce the student to—

National Security Strategy Development. 

Joint Operations Planning. 

■

■

Joint Engineer Capabilities. 

JTF Engineer Staff Operations and Planning. 

Theater Engineer Operations. 

Joint Engineer Considerations and Relations With Joint

Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational Organizations (JIIM). 

Joint Environmental Considerations.

Resident Phase

The JEOC Resident Phase primarily consists of facilitatorled small-group discussions and associated practical exercises (PEs). Integrated throughout the course agenda are seven 

JTF engineer seminar discussions via video teleconference 

(VTC), guest speaker or panel discussions, and social activities with guests from specialized engineering fields. 

The seven seminars are aligned with PEs built around likely JTF scenarios. Students must demonstrate their knowledge 

and ability to apply joint Service engineer capabilities, common functions, and responsibilities of a JTF engineer staff officer or noncommissioned officer in a simulated JTF engineer 

staff environment to develop a joint engineer solution. The 

seminars and practical exercises are—

Service Engineer Capabilities. 

Engineer Support Plan. 

JTF Assignments, Functions, and Roles.

Horizontal Staff Integration. 

Engineer Functions. 

Facilities Engineering and General Engineering.

Outside-the-Wire Considerations. 

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Joint Engineer

Operations Course Overview

By Ms. Rachel M. Walkenbach

JEOC Dates and Locations

7-11 April 2008

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

U.S. Army Engineer School (USAES)

2-6 June 2008

Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio

Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT)

17-21 November 2008

Quantico, Virginia

HQ, U.S. Marine Corps

Marine Corps University
January-March 2008 Engineer 27

The Resident Phase guest speakers and topics are as

follows:

Combatant Command Engineer – Area of Responsibility

(AOR) Briefing

Theater JTF Engineer Perspectives and Lessons Learned 

Coalition Engineer Panel (A, B, C countries)

JTF Engineer Observations and the Effects-Based

Approach to Operations 

Senior Engineer (JS-J4) Theater and Joint Engineer

Considerations 

Geospatial Engineering Capabilities Presentation 

Sourcing and the Request-for-Forces (RFF) Process 

Base Development and Planning 

Environmental Considerations for the JTF Engineer 

Senior Engineer Brief (Service Engineer Chief) 

Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Presentation 

Engineer Support to Joint Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational (JIIM) Operations 

Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance – Engineer Roles

in Disaster Operations

Contractors on the Battlefield 

Defense Support to Civil Authorities (NORTHCOM)

Enrollment in the Resident Phase of JEOC is based on priority, considering the fact that only 45 students can be accommodated per course. Top priority goes to personnel assigned 

to a JTF, combatant command, or component command.

Second priority goes to personnel with a high probability of 

being assigned to a joint billet. Third priority is for other personnel who would benefit from attending JEOC. 

Summary

The course provides sufficient grounding for students 

to understand the responsibilities of a staff officer assigned to the joint engineer staff section of a JTF. The 

major focus of the course is to introduce students to joint doctrine, planning and operations (specifically engineer operations), and the types of engineer staff positions and associated 

products engineers are required to develop. 

All engineers are encouraged to enroll in the Joint

Engineer Operations Course. For questions pertaining to 

enrollment, contact Mr. Dwayne Boeres at the Directorate 

of Training and Leader Development, United States Army

Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65583. He 

can also be reached at <dwayne.boeres@us.army.mil> or 

(573) 563-7065.

Ms. Walkenbach is a contractor with C2 Technologies, 

Inc., and works in the Directorate of Training and Leader 

Development, United States Army Engineer School, Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri.

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Infrastructure Support Engineering

Infrastructure engineering support to the joint force is 

provided by the infrastructure support engineer group. The 

group comprises four works groups, each of which consists 

of five STREs of various disciplines (materials, works, water 

development, bulk petroleum, utilities, water infrastructure, 

power infrastructure, fuels infrastructure, rail infrastructure, 

and port infrastructure). Although predominantly made up 

of active duty personnel, there is also a reserve component 

that provides specialist expertise in civilian infrastructure 

and utilities. The role of the works groups on operations is 

to conduct professional and technical assessment, design, conduct professional and technical assessment, design,

planning, and supervision of infrastructure engineering tasks, 

including the use of contractors and locally employed civilians 

when required. This use of small, stand-alone deployable 

teams—combining professional engineers, technician engineers, technicians, design trades and, in certain teams, 

specialist trades—has proved to be highly successful in recent 

operations.

Summary

Given the constraints of space, it has only been 

possible to give a broad overview of the capabilities 

of the Royal Engineers in this article, and there are 

some elements of the Corps’s capabilities that I have not 

addressed at all. However, I hope that I have been able to 

provide an insight into the way in which the British Army 

develops and manages its military engineer capability and that 

this insight is informative in the context of the current debate. 

By way of conclusion, it is worth noting that the UK’s recent 

review of future army structures has resulted in a significant 

increase in the size of the Royal Engineers and, furthermore, 

that this increase has largely been achieved at the expense of 

the combat arms. This clearly illustrates the value that UK 

Defense places on its engineer capability, and it will ensure 

that the Corps can continue to uphold its motto of Ubique

(everywhere).

Colonel Phillips is the British Liaison Officer at the United States 

Army Maneuver Support Center, an appointment which he took up 

in October 2007. Prior to this, he was the officer career manager 

for the Royal Engineers, and previous appointments include 

Commanding Officer at the Royal School of Military Engineering 

and Commanding Officer of the Army Technical Foundation 

College. He also commanded the UK’s Joint EOD Force on the entry 

operation into Kosovo.

Endnotes

1

In the British Army, an engineer battalion is designated as a 

“regiment.”

2

A UK engineer company is designated as a “squadron.”

3

The geographic capability will not be discussed in this article.

4

The construction field also includes the discipline of military plant 

foreman.

“Royal Engineers,” continued from page 20)
28 Engineer January-March 2008

The 1/101 Brigade Combat Team (BCT) Operations 

Center receives an urgent call from a mounted combat patrol, 

Rough Rider element, in the city of Kirkuk, Iraq, requesting 

immediate explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) team response. 

The Operations Center relays to the EOD team that 

during the course of a coalition presence patrol in 

downtown Kirkuk, a convoy of five up-armored 

HMMWVs was struck by an improvised explosive 

device (IED); the lead vehicle took the force of the 

blast, resulting in minor injuries to the occupants 

and minimal vehicle damage. The Operations Center 

immediately dispatches its on-call quick-reaction 

force to escort the EOD team to the incident scene. 

Once at the scene, the on-site convoy commander 

provides the EOD team chief with a detailed 

description of the events that led to the attack and 

a sketch of the scene. The EOD team chief ensures 

that 360-degree site security is in place and that all 

coalition and local national personnel in the area 

are safely evacuated. The EOD team uses robotic 

equipment to quickly do a remote survey of the vehicle 

damage, explosion site, and surrounding area. They 

find an animal carcass with electrical wires coming 

out of it, obviously emplaced by insurgents as a 

secondary IED meant to kill or injure the first-responders. 

Using a robot, the EOD team destroys the secondary IED by 

placing an explosive charge on the carcass. The site is cleared 

and the EOD team is escorted back to the forward operating 

base (FOB)—another mission success.

GATOR:

EOD Counter-IED Training

By Senior Master Sergeant Mike Hague

EOD robots have proved to be invaluable on the battlefield.

Photo courtesy U.S. Air Force

Photo courtesy U.S. Air Force
January-March 2008 Engineer 29

This realistic scenario is just 

one of many that Air Force 

EOD teams encounter 

during a Global Antiterrorism and 

Operational Readiness (GATOR) 

Course. The two-week course, held 

at the Ordnance Munitions and 

Electronic Maintenance School, 

Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is 

required predeployment training 

for EOD forces. The course 

provides training on IED threats 

and unique EOD procedures and 

equipment encountered in Iraq and 

Afghanistan.

GATOR is owned and operated 

by the United States Army, which 

established the course in 2003 

to enhance the training its EOD 

forces received before deploying 

for Operation Iraqi Freedom or 

Operation Enduring Freedom. 

The Army conducts more than 30 

GATOR classes per year, training 

well over 500 EOD technicians from 

all Services, as well as EOD teams 

from other countries. The permanent GATOR staff consists 

of four Active Army EOD instructors and a team of contract 

support personnel who build IED training aids and maintain 

specialized robotics and equipment. Each Service provides 

additional subject matter experts to assist the GATOR staff 

while their Service teams attend the course.

GATOR’s joint Service training venue allows Air Force 

EOD teams to train as they will fight on the joint Service 

battlefield. Week one consists of classroom training on current 

enemy tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP); IED trends; 

advanced IED electronics; electronic countermeasures; 

Iraq/Afghanistan ordnance identifica­tion; crime scene 

investigation/forensic analysis; and robotic equipment 

operations. During week two, students respond to more than 

30 practical scenarios based on current EOD incidents and 

evolving insurgent TTP.

The GATOR course is just a part of the required training 

EOD forces must have before heading to the Iraq and 

Afghanistan areas of operations. They must also com­plete Air 

Force predeployment training at home station and a 15-day 

basic Combat Skills Training Course at one of the Army’s 

stateside power projection platforms. This is all in addition 

to their normal schedule at home station. EOD forces spend 

more than 30 percent of their time in training—to maintain 

their minimum career field qualifications, to hone their 

wartime skills, and to stay proficient on specialized EOD 

tools and TTP.

It’s a lot of training, but the execution of EOD operations 

on the Iraqi and Afghani battlefields requires unwavering skill 

to ensure the safety and survival of coalition forces and local 

nationals. The GATOR Course provides excep­tional handson classroom training and challenging practical scenarios 

built from actual EOD operations occurring in-theater within 

the past few months.

Senior Master Sergeant Hague is the Air Force EOD 

Operations and Training Program Manager, Headquarters, 

Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency, Tyndall Air Force 

Base, Florida.

Note: A version of this article was published in the Air 

Force Civil Engineer magazine, Volume 15, No. 2, pages

12-13.

A team member watches in the mirror of the new EOD Cougar Armored Response 

Vehicle as another EOD journeyman prepares explosive charges.

Photo courtesy U.S. Air Force
30 Engineer January-March 2008

This article provides an update on the status of the 

Engineer Regiment’s keystone manual—Field Manual 

(FM) 3-34, Engineer Operations—and the ongoing 

development of its two subordinate and companion manuals, 

FM 3-34.22, Engineer Operations – Brigade Combat Team 

and Below, and FM 3-34.23, Engineer Operations – Echelons 

Above the Brigade Combat Team. These are significant 

revisions of the doctrine for engineer operations supporting 

all echelons from company teams and task forces to theater 

armies.

Status of FM 3-34 and the Way Ahead

The final draft (FD) of FM 3-34 was staffed “worldwide,” and 340 comments were received. The writing team is adjudicating all comments and preparing 

the “approved” FD for editing. Once editing is completed, 

the manual will begin its final staffing through the United 

States Army Engineer School commandant, the United States 

Army Maneuver Support Center commander, and then to the 

Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate of the Combined Arms 

Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, before it is published and 

posted on Army Knowledge Online (AKO). The publication 

of this latest version of FM 3-34 is projected for early fall 

of 2008. The completed version of FM 3-34 will be the 21st 

edition of our engineer keystone operational manual, with the 

first one being printed before 1897. (See Engineer, JanuaryMarch 2007, page 4.) 

Development of FM 3-34.22 and FM 3-34.23

FM 3-34.22 is a new manual that will encompass 

engineer operations doctrine for all three types of 

brigade combat teams (BCTs)—heavy, infantry, and 

Stryker—and their primary subordinate units. It will supersede 

the following manuals, and the information contained in them 

will be revised and consolidated in the new manual: 

FM 3-34.221, Engineer Operations – Stryker Brigade

Combat Team, dated 7 January 2005

FM 5-7-30, Brigade Engineer and Engineer Company

Combat Operations, dated 28 December 1994

FM 5-71-2, Armored Task-Force Engineer Combat

Operations, dated 28 June 1996

FM 5-71-3, Brigade Engineer Combat Operations

(Armored), dated 3 October 1995 

■

■

■

■

FM 3-34.22 reflects the considerable changes that have 

occurred over the 14-plus years since all of these manuals 

were released. While many of the tactical tasks associated 

with combat and general engineering support have remained 

essentially constant, the operational environment has 

dramatically shifted. New focused threats such as improvised 

explosive devices (IEDs) are but one example of those changes. 

Another major change involves the Army’s reorganization 

and restructuring to the modular force and the effects that this 

has had on doctrine and the conduct of operations.

FM 3-34.23 is a new manual that will supersede the 

following manuals and will combine doctrine previously 

published in them:

FM 5-71-100, Division Engineer Combat Operations, 

dated 22 April 1993

FM 5-100-15, Corps Engineer Operations, dated 6 June

1995

FM 5-116, Engineer Operations: Echelons Above Corps, 

dated 9 February 1999

Just as Army transformation has flattened higher-echelon 

structure into modular, scalable capabilities, this manual 

flattens the associated engineer doctrine for these echelons 

for greater effectiveness and efficiency.

The intent of these two new FMs, with consolidated and 

revised material from the superseded manuals, is to establish 

doctrinal guidance for the employment of engineers and the 

conduct of engineer operations supporting full-spectrum 

operations. These manuals will support the doctrine articulated 

in the newest version of FM 3-0, Operations, dated 28 

February 2008. Each of these manuals will link directly to the 

revised FM 3-34, as well as each other, and also complement 

joint engineer doctrine found in Joint Publication (JP) 3-34, 

Joint Engineer Operations, dated 12 February 2007. These 

engineer manuals will serve as references for commanders 

and staff, leaders, training developers, and doctrine 

developers throughout the Army and the joint, interagency, 

intergovernmental, and multinational (JIIM) community.

The development of these manuals is being led by the 

engineer doctrine team, which includes writers who are 

former engineer officers, available subject matter experts 

from the Army Engineer School and around the Regiment, 

as well as the community of combined arms doctrine 

developers to review and comment as drafts are staffed. 

■

■

■

By Lieutenant Colonel Barry Supplee (Retired) and Lieutenant Colonel Edward R. Lefler
January-March 2008 Engineer 31

Senior engineer leader input from across the Regiment is 

critical to the development of each of these manuals. Also 

critical is the use of a targeted working group of senior 

engineer leaders for focused guidance and reviews as the 

manuals are developed. Most of the development of each 

manual is being done virtually, primarily through e-mail 

correspondence and AKO. Targeted discussion of the latest 

drafts of both manuals occurred prior to ENFORCE 2008

(5-9 May) through a virtual Council of Colonels conducted 

via video teleconference (VTC).

Need for FM 3-34.22 and FM 3-34.23

There are many reasons driving the requirements for 

these manuals. Some of the reasons to consolidate and 

update them are that the Army, and we as engineers in 

particular, have had significant recent operational experiences 

through our participation in ongoing operations in Afghanistan 

and Iraq, as well as other worldwide operations (such as in 

the Philippines and Hurricane Katrina relief). In addition to

FM 3-34, the following key joint and Army manuals have 

been recently revised or are under revision:

JP 3-0, Joint Operations, dated 17 September 2006

JP 3-15, Barriers, Obstacles, and Mine Warfare for Joint

Operations, dated 27 April 2007

JP 3-34, Joint Engineer Operations, dated 12 February

2007

JP 5-0, Joint Operation Planning, dated 26 December

2006

FM 3-0, Operations, dated 28 February 2008

FM 3-90, Tactics, dated 4 July 2001

FM 5-0, Army Planning and Orders Production,

dated 20 January 2005

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Engineer Operational Manuals Hierarchy
32 Engineer January-March 2008

FM 6-0, Mission Command: Command and Control of

Army Forces, dated 11 August 2003

FM 7-15, The Army Universal Task List, dated 31 August

2003

Field Manual Interim (FMI) 5-0.1, The Operations

Process, dated 31 March 2006

The collective body of evolving policy and doctrine, 

coupled with joint and Army transformation impacts on the 

Engineer Regiment, led to development of and conversion 

to the modular engineer force structure. To remain relevant 

and current, it is imperative that engineer doctrine remains 

synchronized with the prevailing body of thought for the 

Army. Doctrine is increasing focus and emphasis on stability 

operations, coupled with the recognition that the Army 

conducts simultaneous full-spectrum operations. Revised 

doctrine recognizes the impacts of conducting multiple 

operations simultaneously and with distinctly different 

objectives for forces in the field, the revised force structure 

and how it is employed, and the modified way that the Army 

conducts its operations. 

Another significant doctrinal change is the deletion of 

the Battlefield Operating System (BOS) construct and the 

development and adoption of Army warfighting functions. 

Adoption of the warfighting functions and revisions to the 

elements of combat power make it necessary to revise our 

thoughts on engineer operations and integrate them through 

warfighting functions. In addition to functional brigades, 

transformation to the modular force has led to the creation 

of three types of maneuver BCTs and five multifunctional 

support brigades designed to provide support to the division 

level. (They are the Maneuver Enhancement Brigade [MEB], 

Battlefield Surveillance, Combat Aviation, Sustainment, 

and Fires Brigades.) The MEB conducts maneuver support 

operations which enhance protection and mobility through 

variable mixes of forces—such as engineer; military police; 

chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN); and 

explosive ordnance disposal (EOD)—conducting combined 

arms operations. When engineer units are assigned or 

attached to an MEB, many of their traditional combat and 

general engineer missions will be executed in the context of 

maneuver support operations for the supported force.

All of these changes are driving significant content 

adjustment in these manuals, to include a crosswalk of 

linkages from the three engineer functions of combat, general, 

and geospatial engineering to the six warfighting functions. 

The Army warfighting functions, which were first introduced 

in FMI 5-0.1, replace the BOS construct in the new FM 

3-0, link to the joint functions, and will be reflected in the 

revised version of FM 3-34. The new FM 3-34 will highlight 

and describe the criticality of 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 BCTfocused 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 decisionmaking and synchronization process.

FM 3-34.22 and FM 3-34.23, which are intended to be 

companion manuals to FM 3-34, will complement and 

integrate other recent and ongoing doctrinal updates within 

the engineer doctrine proponency as well. These manuals 

include the following:

FM 3-34.210, Explosive Hazards Operations, dated

27 March 2004

FM 3-100.4, Environmental Considerations in Military

Operations (will be republished as FM 3-34.500/MCRP

4-11B) 

FM 5-103, Survivability Operations (will be republished

as FM 3-34.300/MCWP 3-17.6)

FM 5-104, General Engineering Operations (will be

republished as FM 3-34.400/MCWP 3-17.8)

FM 5-170, Engineer Reconnaissance (will be republished

as FM 3-34.170/MCWP 3-17.4) and the related

infrastructure reconnaissance

FM 90-13, River Crossing Operations (will be republished 

as FM 3-90.12/MCRP 3-17.1, Combined Arms Gap

Crossing Operations)

These updates to doctrine should be available on AKO within 

the year.

Framing of the Manuals

The development of FM 3-34.22 leverages foundational 

changes made during the development of FM

3-34.221. This new FM further aligns doctrine for 

engineer operations at the BCT and below echelons with 

evolved doctrine for all three types of BCTs and specifically 

FM 3-90.6, The Brigade Combat Team, 4 August 2006;

FM 3-90.61, The Brigade Special Troops Battalion,

22 December 2006; and the recently released FM 3-90.5, 

Combined Arms Battalion Operations. 

To avoid doctrinal redundancy in the manual, it references 

FM 3-90.6 for the general discussion on BCT operations, 

while focusing on engineer aspects at that level. It also 

references FM 3-34 for discussion of an engineer view of the 

operational environment and modular engineer capabilities 

and references FM 3-34.170 for detailed discussion on 

engineer reconnaissance capabilities. FM 3-34.22 will be 

framed in eight chapters:

Chapter 1: Engineers in Support of the Brigade Combat 

Team – describes the role of engineers and engineer

support to the BCT, as well as specific engineer

organization within the BCT.

Chapter 2: Integrating Engineer Operations – describes

processes to integrate engineer operations within the

BCT.

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■
January-March 2008 Engineer 33

Chapter 3: Engineer Support to Intelligence, Surveillance,

and Reconnaissance – describes engineer reconnaissance

in support of BCT ISR operations.

Chapter 4: Engineer Support to Security Operations

– describes engineer support of BCT security

operations.

Chapter 5: Engineer Support to Lethal and Nonlethal

Fires – describes the integration of engineer support to

targeting and civil affairs operations.

Chapter 6: Engineer Support to Combat Operations

– describes integration of engineer support in BCT

offensive and defensive operations.

Chapter 7: Stability and Civil Support Operations –

describes integration of engineer support in BCT stability

or civil support operations.

Chapter 8: Sustainment Support for Engineer Operations

– discusses the considerations for sustainment of engineer units and operations supporting the BCT.

In addition to the chapters, a number of appendixes will 

be included in the manual to provide additional detailed 

discussion for a variety of selected topics.

The development of FM 3-34.23 currently precedes the 

development of other new higher-echelon manuals that are 

likely to be designated as FM 3-91, FM 3-92, and FM 3-93 

for division, corps, and theater army echelons. The new FM 

3-34.23 flattens the body of doctrine for engineer operations 

at echelons above the BCT from three separate manuals into a 

single manual. To avoid doctrinal redundancy in the manual, 

it references FM 3-34 for discussion of an engineer view of 

the operational environment (OE) and details on modular 

engineer capabilities. The manual will be framed in seven 

chapters:

Chapter 1: Engineer View of the Operational Environment

– describes the role of engineers and engineer support

at higher echelons.

Chapter 2: Modular Force Organization – describes the

engineer organizations and the higher echelon headquarters they will support.

Chapter 3: Foundations of Engineer Operations – discusses

integration of engineer operations at higher echelons.

Chapter 4: Theater Army Echelon Engineer Operations 

– describes engineer support for theater army echelon

operations.

Chapter 5: Corps Echelon Engineer Operations –

describes engineer support for corps echelon operations.

Chapter 6: Division Echelon Engineer Operations – 

describes engineer support for division echelon

operations.

Chapter 7: Sustainment Support for the Engineer Unit

– discusses considerations for sustainment of engineer

units and operations at echelons above the BCT.

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

In addition to these chapters, a number of appendixes will 

be included in the manual to provide additional detailed 

discussion for a variety of selected topics. 

Current Development Status

The writing team is currently preparing a final draft of FM 

3-34.22 and the initial draft of FM 3-34.23. Both drafts 

were completed in time for a presentation and discussion 

prior to ENFORCE 2008. Based on the guidance from the 

review of these documents and this virtual meeting/Council of 

Colonels, revised and updated drafts will be completed later in 

the year and staffed for Armywide review and comment. After 

the comments from these staffings are received and adjudicated, 

final electronic file drafts will be prepared, edited, and staffed 

to enable these manuals to be published (in print and on AKO). 

Other focused working group actions and staffing dates will 

be developed as necessary to support the production of the 

manuals for the Regiment. The publication of these manuals 

and placement on AKO is projected for late 2008 for FM 3-

34.22 and late 2009 for FM 3-34.23. Your participation in the 

reviews and development of these manuals is necessary to make 

them relevant and useful to all leaders in the Engineer Regiment 

and the Army.

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.

Lieutenant Colonel Lefler is the Chief of the Engineer 

Doctrine Branch, United States Army Maneuver Support Center 

Directorate of Training, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He is 

a registered professional engineer in Nebraska and a Project 

Management Professional.

2008 Engineer Unit Directory

The 2008 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 <leon.engineer@conus.army.mil>.
34 Engineer January-March 2008

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description

(and Current Status)

Publications Currently Under Revision

FM 3-34 Engineer Operations 10 Mar 03

This new manual will encompass engineer operations in support of 

all three types of brigade combat teams (BCTs) (heavy, infantry, and 

Stryker–the armored cavalry regiment) and their primary subordinate 

units. It combines the current manuals that guide engineer operations 

in BCTs, and will integrate the significant changes caused by 

transformation. Changes in the structure of the force have caused 

adjustments to the command and control (C2) structure and tailoring 

of engineer forces to support the BCTs. Engineer augmentation of 

each of the BCTs now occurs on a regular basis. Recent lessons 

learned in security and reconstruction operations; infrastructure 

reconnaissance; clearing operations; and engineer support to 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) operations will 

also be incorporated. This manual will support the BCT doctrine found 

in FM 3-90.6 and include key engineer employment principles and C2 

procedures found in FM 3-90.61.

Revision Highlights: MEF and warfighting functions.

Status: Preparing the final draft.

FM 3-34.22 

(FM 3-34.221) 

(FM 5-71-2)

(FM 5-71-3)

(FM 5-7-30)

Engineer Operations –

Brigade Combat Team

and Below

Pending

(Jan 05)

(Jun 96)

(Oct 95)

(Dec 94)

As the engineer keystone manual, this field manual (FM) encompasses 

all engineer doctrine; integrates the three engineer functions of combat, 

general, and geospatial engineering; and addresses engineer operations 

across the entire spectrum of operations and at all echelons. While 

embracing the concept of modularity, this manual is being updated to 

fully integrate the modular engineer force (MEF). The new versions of 

Joint Publication (JP) 3-34, Joint Engineer Operations; JP 3-0, Joint 

Operations; FM 3-0, Full Spectrum Operations; and other manuals drove 

the requirement for this manual to be updated. All other Army engineer 

doctrinal manuals are based on the principles and tenets found in this 

manual.

Revision Highlights: MEF, warfighting functions, explosive ordnance 

clearance agent (EOCA), and the maneuver enhancement brigade 

(MEB).

Status: Under revision in FY 08. The revision is linked to the FM 3-0 

revision and its finalization; the final draft staffing is complete, the 

comments have been received, and adjudication of the comments is 

ongoing.

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center 

Training and Doctrine Development Department

Doctrine Division, Engineer Branch

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

FM 3-90.11 

(FM 3-34.2)

Combined Arms Mobility 

Operations

Aug 00 This is a full revision, to include renaming and renumbering of FM

3-34.2, Combined Arms Breaching Operations. Changes in the structure 

of the force have not changed the principles of breaching, but they have 

required adjustment of the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) 

associated with breaching and clearance operations. Recent lessons 

learned in clearance operations are being incorporated into this revision, 

as well as selected information on improvised explosive device (IED) 

defeat and gap crossing operations. The numbering for this manual 

reflects its critical relationship to the keystone manual FM 3-90, Tactics 

and Combined Arms Operations. 

Combat Engineering
January-March 2008 Engineer 35

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description

(and Current Status)

Combat Engineering (continued)

This is a full revision, to include renaming and renumbering of FM 

90-13/MCRP 3-17.1, River Crossing Operations. This manual is and 

will continue to be a dual-designated manual with the Marine Corps. 

While changes in the structure of the force have not changed the basic 

principles of river crossing operations, they have required that the 

TTP associated with river crossing be adjusted. The revised manual 

incorporates considerations for all gap crossing operations. FM 3-90.11 

will be the base manual for discussions on mobility operations, and FM 

3-90.12 will be written as a companion manual, taking advantage of the 

discussion of mobility operations in FM 3-90.11. The numbering for this 

manual reflects its critical relationship to the keystone manual FM 3-90.

Revision Highlights: MEF, engineer reconnaissance, gap crossing 

definitions, and warfighting functions.

Status: The U.S. Army Engineer School Commandant has approved 

the manual; awaiting Marine Corps approval. The estimated posting to 

Army Knowledge Online (AKO) is Spring 2008.

FM 3-90.12 

(FM 90-13)

Combined Arms Gap Crossing 

Operations

Jan 98

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center 

Training and Doctrine Development Department

Doctrine Division, Engineer Branch

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

Revision Highlights: MEF, five areas of mobility (breaching, 

clearing, gap crossing, combat roads and trails, forward aviation 

combat engineering [FACE]), IEDs, urban breaching, and warfighting 

functions.

Status: In final draft (on hold to address transition to warfighting 

functions and awaiting release of the revisions of FM 3-0 and

FM 3-90). It likely will require some rework and possibly restaffing.

FM 3-90.11 

(FM 3-34.2)

Combined Arms Mobility 

Operations, cont.

Aug 00

FM 3-90.13 

(FM 5-102)

(FM 90-7)

Combined Arms Obstacle 

Integration

Sep 94;

Mar 85

FM 90-7 was a solid combined arms manual, but was in need of a 

significant revision. The integration of FM 5-102, Countermobility, into 

this manual is a logical progression since most of the information is 

either complementary or redundant. Both manuals needed updating and 

expansion of their material to incorporate aspects of the contemporary 

operating environment (COE). It will be renumbered as FM 3-90.13 

during revision, reflecting the combined arms nature of these operations.

This manual will contain the enduring basic fundamentals associated with 

countermobility operations.

Revision Highlights: MEF, warfighting functions, and intelligent 

munitions.

Status: Preparing program directive and initial draft.

This manual provides doctrinal guidance for engineer reconnaissance 

across the full spectrum of operations. It encompasses engineer 

reconnaissance in support of tactical operations, as well as engineer 

technical reconnaissance support, and introduces infrastructure 

reconnaissance. This manual supersedes FM 5-170. Changes in the 

structure of the force have not changed the basic principles of engineer 

employment, but they will adjust the C2 structure and tailoring of 

engineer forces to support the BCT. Recent lessons learned include 

the need to define, develop, and provide a proponent manual for 

infrastructure reconnaissance and its memory aid sewage, water, 

FM 3-34.170 

(FM 5-170)

Engineer Reconnaissance May 98
36 Engineer January-March 2008

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description

(and Current Status)

Combat Engineering (continued)

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center 

Training and Doctrine Development Department

Doctrine Division, Engineer Branch

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

electricity, academics, trash, medical, safety, and other considerations 

(SWEAT-MSO).

Revision Highlights: The introduction of infrastructure 

reconnaissance (assessment and survey), environmental 

reconnaissance (assessment and survey), engineer reconnaissance 

teams, field force engineering (FFE), and other reachback 

mechanisms. The manual highlights the creation of the first dedicated 

engineer reconnaissance element in the engineer company of the 

heavy brigade combat team (HBCT).

Status: U.S. Army Engineer School Commandant and the Marine 

Corps approved; accepted and approved by the Combined Arms 

Doctrine Directorate (CADD); and forwarded to the Army Publishing 

Directorate (APD) for publishing and posting to AKO.

FM 3-34.170 

(FM 5-170)

Engineer Reconnaissance, 

cont.

May 98

This is a full revision, to include renumbering, of FM 5-103, 

Survivability Operations, which was last published in 1985. The 

emergence of protection doctrine, coupled with changes to FM 3-0 

and FM 3-34, mandated a full revision. It will also relate survivability to 

the other capability elements of the protection warfighting function, as 

described and defined in FM 3-0 and FM 3-10. This manual focuses 

on providing survivability information needed by commanders and 

their staff at the tactical level, but has applicability for a much larger 

audience as well. The manual relates the engineer-focused aspects 

of survivability to the broader use of the terms of survivability and 

protection. This manual addresses the aspects associated with the 

six areas of survivability, with a focus on hardening. The manual will 

expand the discussion of survivability across all echelons. 

Revision Highlights: Protection, hardening, antiterrorism 

considerations, and warfighting functions.

Status: Preparing final draft for update. It is on hold for release of

FM 3-10.

FM 3-34.300 

(FM 5-103)

Survivability Jun 85

FM 3-34.281

(FM 20-21)

Military Diving Jan 99 The original manual (FM 20-21) was a complete adoption of the Navy 

diving manual and a complete reproduction of Change 4 to Navy 

diving manual SS521-AG-PRO-010, dated Jan 99. This manual, 

which will be renumbered as FM 3-34.281 during revision, will 

support one of the modular units of the MEF. Within the Army, this 

document is used by special operations forces, as well as engineer 

divers.

Revision Highlights: To make the manual more useful and 

comprehensive for Army use, the entire Navy diving manual will not 

be adopted; instead, the targeted sections applying to Army diving 

use will be adopted with other Army-specific considerations being 

added to the manual, creating an Army-focused diving manual.

Status: A sequential effort will begin in detail after the Navy update 

to the Navy diving operational manual; developing the program 

directive.
January-March 2008 Engineer 37

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description

(and Current Status)

General Engineering

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center 

Training and Doctrine Development Department

Doctrine Division, Engineer Branch

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

This is the primary manual relating the engineer function that bears its 

name. It provides the linkage between the engineering doctrine contained 

in FM 3-0, FM 3-34, and JP 3-34. As the implementing manual for general 

engineering, this manual describes the operational environment (OE) 

and how to apply and integrate general engineering principals in support 

of full spectrum operations. This manual is designed primarily to assist 

Army engineers at all echelons in planning and coordinating general 

engineering operations at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels. 

It is the primary doctrinal manual to define the engineer function of 

general engineering. It links to the FM 3-10 definitions of base camp and 

the various types of base camps. General engineering tasks are a part 

of most military operations. The degree of Army engineer involvement 

in accomplishing these tasks will vary based on the mission, situation, 

availability of engineer resources and the commander’s intent. Planners 

must recognize that joint and Army transformation has rapidly changed 

the way we resource and conduct operations, and the application of 

general engineering is no exception. We have always tailored engineer 

elements and capabilities to support the force. The provisions of the MEF 

have provided additional modularity into Army engineer organizations to 

facilitate the commitment of only the required engineer assets into the 

theater of operations (TO). Enhancing the capabilities of those assets 

are reachback capabilities that minimize the footprint of engineers while 

optimizing the performance of those deployed elements. Planners must 

apply these improvements and ensure that the general engineering effort 

is seamlessly woven into the commander’s plan in a proactive fashion 

and accomplishes the commander’s intent. This manual is the primary 

reference for all the other general engineering-related engineer reference 

manuals.

Revision Highlights: Infrastructure reconnaissance, field force 

engineering (FFE) (reachback), homeland support, MEF, and warfighting 

functions.

Status: Editing of the final electronic file, quality control, staffing for U.S. 

Army Engineer School Commandant approval, with an estimated posting 

to AKO as Spring 2008.

FM 3-34.400 

(FM 5-104)

General Engineering Nov 86

This is a full revision and consolidation of FM 5-430-00-1 and

FM 5-430-00-2 into one manual that is separated into two volumes. This 

manual will serve as a reference for engineer planners in support of joint 

and theater operations in the design of roads, airfields, and helipads. 

This manual is currently dual-designated with the Air Force designation of 

AFJPAM 32-8013, Volumes I and II. The Navy plans to participate in this 

revision and to adopt this manual as well, making it multi-Service. The 

intent is to update the current FMs with new techniques and procedures 

for planning and designing roads, airfields, and heliports in support of 

TO. The revision will integrate recent doctrinal updates. FM 3-34.410 

is intended for use as a reference text and training guide for engineer 

personnel responsible for planning, designing, and constructing roads, 

airfields, and heliports in the TO. The two current FMs are essentially one 

manual divided into two separate volumes. Volume 1 is a stand-alone 

volume for the design of TO roads. This volume also serves as a detailed 

description of information common to both roads and airfields. Volume II 

serves as the basis for airfield and heliport design. It covers the complete 

FM 3-34.410

Volumes I & II 

(FM 5-430-00-1 

& 5-430-00-2)

Design of Theater of 

Operations Roads, Airfields 

and Helipads

Aug 94;

Sep 94
38 Engineer January-March 2008

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description

(and Current Status)

General Engineering (continued)

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center 

Training and Doctrine Development Department

Doctrine Division, Engineer Branch

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

FM 3-34.428

(FM 5-424)

Theater of Operations 

Electrical Systems

Jun 97

FM 3-34.451

(FM 5-472)

Materials Testing Dec 92 This manual is intended to provide technical information necessary for 

military personnel to obtain samples and perform engineering tests and 

calculations on soils, bituminous paving mixtures, and concrete. These 

tests and calculations are required to achieve proper design with these 

materials and adequate control over their use in military construction. 

The manual covers soils, aggregates, bituminous cements, bituminous 

paving mixtures, portland-cement concrete, and stabilized soil—including 

stabilizing agents such as bitumens, cements, lime, fly ash, and 

chemical modifiers.The current manual (FM 5-472) gives detailed 

instructions for taking adequate representative test samples tests and for 

recording, calculating, and evaluating test results. The test procedures 

and terminology used in this manual conform to the latest methods 

and specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM), the American Concrete Institute (ACI), and the Portland Cement 

Association (PCA), with alternate field testing methods and sampling 

techniques when complete lab facilities are unavailable or impractical to 

use. This manual is currently a multi-Service publication with the Navy 

and the Air Force (NAVFAC MO 330/AFJMAN 32-1221(I). The manual 

will be renumbered as FM 3-34.451 during its revision.

Revision Highlights: It a collaborative effort with ERDC and USACE 

Transportation Center of Excellence (Omaha), the Air Force, AFCESA, 

and the Navy. Newest technologies, current practices, and revision of 

formulas.

Status: Initiating the program directive and developing the initial draft.

process of airfield and heliport construction. It is not a stand-alone 

volume. Volume 1 contains much of the information required to design the 

substructure of an airfield or a heliport. 

Revision Highlights: This is a collaborative effort with the Engineer 

Research and Development Center (ERDC) and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) Transportation Center of Excellence (Omaha), Air 

Force, Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency (AFCESA), and the 

Navy. It includes the newest technologies, current practices, and revision 

of formulas.

Status: Initiating the program directive and developing the initial draft.

FM 3-34.410

Volumes I & II 

(FM 5-430-00-1 

& 5-430-00-2)

Design of Theater 

of Operations 

Roads, Airfields and 

Helipads, cont.

Aug 94;

Sep 94

This manual is intended to be used as a reference text and training guide 

for engineer personnel who are responsible for planning and executing 

(TO) construction. The five major parts of this manual provide practical 

information for military personnel in the design, layout, installation, 

and maintenance of exterior and interior electrical wiring, and powergeneration and distribution systems. The manual will be renumbered as 

FM 3-34.428 during this revision. While not currently designed to support 

a specific module of the MEF, this manual does support the general 

engineering function and typical vertical construction efforts. 

Revision Highlights: This manual needs to be revised to make it more 

comprehensive and includes more details on tactical power generation 

below prime power, power distribution, the newest technologies, and 

current practices in the deployed environments.

Status: Developing the program directive.
January-March 2008 Engineer 39

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description

(and Current Status)

General Engineering (continued)

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center 

Training and Doctrine Development Department

Doctrine Division, Engineer Branch

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

FM 3-34.465 

(FM 3-34.465 

& FM 3-34.468)

Quarry Operations Mar 05;

Dec 03

(Apr 94)

This manual emphasizes the aspects of pit and quarry layout, design, 

and operation. It outlines the methods and procedures used in the 

exploration for and operation of pits and quarries. It provides information 

on the equipment required for operating pits and quarries and for 

supplying crushed mineral products, but does not cover the operation 

of the stated types of equipment. The revised manual will contain 

the revision and consolidation of the material in this manual, and the 

material contained in FM 3-34.468, Seabee Quarry Blasting Operations 

and Safety Manual.

Revision Highlights: It is a collaborative effort with the Navy, with an 

Army lead and possible Air Force participation as well. The intent is 

to combine the two existing manuals into one manual containing the 

newest technologies, current practices, and revision of formulas, with an 

overall update of the materials contained within.

Status: Staffing the program directive and initiating development of the 

initial draft.

This manual is a guide for engineer personnel responsible for planning, 

designing, and drilling wells. It focuses on techniques and procedures 

for installing wells and includes expedient methods for digging shallow 

water wells, such as hand-dug wells. This manual, currently a multiService publication with both the Navy and the Air Force (NAVFAP 

P-1065/AFMAN 32-1072), will support one of the modules of the MEF. 

Revision Highlights: This is a collaborative effort with the Navy, 

with Navy lead and Air Force participation. The intent is to update the 

material with the newest technologies, current practices, and revised 

formulas, making the main body of the document multi-Service in nature 

with specific appendixes to address Service differences in capabilities 

and equipment.

Status: The initial draft is out for staffing and comment.

FM 3-34.469 

(FM 5-484)

Multi-Service Well Drilling 

Operations

Mar 94

FM 3-34.485 

(FM 5-415)

Firefighting Operations Feb 99 The purpose of FM 5-415 is to give a commander and members of 

firefighting teams direction on deploying and using engineer firefighting 

teams. Engineer firefighting teams provide fire prevention/protection, 

aircraft crash/rescue, natural cover, and hazardous material (HAZMAT) 

(incident) responses within a TO. Normally, there are not enough 

firefighting assets within the TO; therefore, commanders must prioritize 

assets and facilities that are mission-essential and deploy firefighting 

assets accordingly. The manual will support one of the modular units of 

the MEF. It will be renumbered as FM 3-34.485 during revision.

Revision Highlights: This is a parallel effort with the revision of the 

firefighting Army regulation (AR) to bring both policy and doctrine 

current with required certifications, newest technologies, and current 

practices.

Status: Initiating the program directive and developing the initial draft 

subsequent to the revision of the AR and the conduct of the convoy 

firefighting integrated capabilities development team (ICDT).
40 Engineer January-March 2008

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description

(and Current Status)

General Engineering (continued)

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center 

Training and Doctrine Development Department

Doctrine Division, Engineer Branch

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

FM 3-34.500 

(FM 3-100.4)

Environmental Considerations 

in Military Operations

Jun 00 FM 3-100.4, Environmental Considerations in Military Operations, 

guides the Army and the Marine Corps in applying appropriate 

environmental protection procedures during all types of operations. 

It also provides basic techniques and procedures for units at the 

company, battalion, and brigade/regiment levels. This manual states 

the purposes of military environmental protection, a description of 

legal requirements, and a summary of current military programs. It 

also describes the growing strategic significance of environmental 

factors in the 21st century. As a unit procedures manual, it describes 

how to apply risk management methods to identify actions that 

may harm the environment and appropriate steps to prevent or 

mitigate damage. This manual is currently a dual-designated manual 

with the Marine Corps and is under revision by the Directorate of 

Environmental Integration. When this revision is complete, the manual 

will have an Army number of FM 3-34.500. 

Revision Highlights: The revision will contain information and 

lessons learned from current operations. It will continue to be a dualdesignated manual with Marine Corps involvement.

Status: Staffing for U.S. Army Engineer School Commandant and 

Marine Corps approval and posting to AKO.

NOTE: All current engineer publications can be accessed and downloaded in electronic format from the

MSKN Engineer Doctrine website at <https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/500629> or the Reimer Digital Library 

at <http://www.adtdl.army.mil/>. The manuals discussed in this article are currently under development. Drafts 

may be obtained during the staffing process or by contacting the Engineer Doctrine Branch at <leon.mdottddengdoc@conus.army.mil>. The development status of these manuals was current as of 1 February 2008.

Engineer Doctrine Contact Update

The Engineer Doctrine team would like to introduce to the 

Regiment its newest member, Mr. Jeff Beacham, who is taking 

over from Mr. Les Hell as the Engineer Senior Doctrine Analyst 

as Les moves up to assume the duties of the Deputy Doctrine 

Chief for the Maneuver Support Center (MANSCEN). Good 

luck and best wishes are extended to Les as he makes his 

transition to MANSCEN, and a warm welcome is extended 

to Jeff as he comes onboard. Jeff’s Army Knowledge Online 

(AKO) contact information is <jeffery.beacham@us.army.mil>. 

If you haven’t already, you will soon begin to see the staffing 

of draft doctrine coming to you from Jeff. 

A new Maneuver Support Knowledge Network (MSKN) 

website has been established for Engineer Doctrine. There 

you can download the current manuals in the Engineer 

Doctrinal Hierarchy, as well as drafts of the various manuals 

under revision, and can stay updated on the status of those 

revisions and view the final comment matrices on each draft. 

The page may be reached through the MSKN homepage or 

via this link, which goes directly to the Engineer page vice 

the MSKN homepage after AKO login: <https://www.us.army.

mil/suite/page/500629>.

The Engineer Doctrine element is the lead for the 

Regiment’s doctrine. The Engineer School’s Doctrine 

Division is consolidated at the MANSCEN level within the 

MANSCEN Directorate of Training (MDoT) Doctrine Division. 

The telephone numbers for Engineer Doctrine are—Doctrine 

Chief, (573) 563-8161; Senior Doctrine Analyst, (573) 563-

0003 (DSN prefix, 676-). 

The mailing address for written correspondence is: 

Commandant, United States Army Engineer School, ATTN: 

ATZT-TDD-E, 320 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 220, Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri 65473-8929.

For electronic correspondence, the generic NIPR e-mail 

address has changed to <leon.mdottddengdoc@conus.

army.mil>.
January-March 2008 Engineer 41 To view the most current manuals go to the MSKN Engineer Doctrine website at <https:// www.us.army.mil/suite/page/5006297>. The manuals can also be viewed on the Reimer Digital Library at <http://www.train.army.mil>. To find the RDL page go to the Training Homepage and click on the “LOGIN” button (upper right corner). Use your AKO login. As of 1 Mar 08
42 Engineer January-March 2008

Over the past five years, engineers operating the 

Table Rock Dam at Branson, Missouri, have seen 

an alarming amount of water from Table Rock Lake 

leaking through the face of the dam into an inspection gallery 

buried by nearly 180 feet of concrete. Because of this leak, 

an additional pump was installed to remove the water, which 

was rushing in at a rate of more than 400 gallons per minute. 

When the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

Little Rock District decided it was time to do something 

about this leak before it got any worse, it enlisted the services 

of the United States Army Dive Company from Fort Eustis, 

Virginia.

Earlier this year, four members 

of the 86th Engineer Team (Dive), 

an individually deployable and selfsustainable detachment from the 

United States Army Dive Company, 

traveled to Branson with a remotely 

operated vehicle (ROV) to inspect the 

dam and locate the source of the leak. 

The ROV allowed the team to travel 

with minimal equipment and still 

safely inspect and survey the dam. 

The ROV is equipped with a camera 

that sends streaming video to the 

surface and is easily maneuverable 

in the water. After a successful 

reconnaissance, the team planned a 

full-scale repair operation for 16 to 

22 September 2007. 

On 16 September, the 86th linked 

up with the 50th Multirole Bridge 

By First Lieutenant Russell T. Destremps

The lake created by Table Rock Dam has a surface of more than 43,000 acres.
January-March 2008 Engineer 43

Company (MRBC) from Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, 

which deployed to support the diving mission with a sixbay float bridge section to be used for a working and diving 

platform. With more than ten common bridge trucks (CBTs) 

and support vehicles in convoy, the 50th MRBC traveled 

more than 100 miles and deployed its bridge sections directly 

from the CBTs. The sections, which expanded as they 

hit the water, were promptly retrieved by one of the unit’s 

bridge erection boats and towed to be assembled with the 

other bridge sections. The entire operation took less than

90 minutes and resulted in a 25- by 120-foot floating platform 

that could easily support the weight of the divers’ equipment. 

The rapidly deployable float bridges are designed to support 

the weight of a 70-ton M1 Abrams main battle tank. The 

working space and maneuverability offered by the bridge 

sections were helpful to the mission.

The Soldiers of the 50th MRBC secured the floating 

platform to the side of the dam; the 86th divers set up their 

equipment and began repair operations on 17 September. 

After the ROV located a series of 2- to 6-inch holes in the 

face of the dam, divers went down more than 140 feet to 

repair them. Despite the relatively small size of the holes, the 

amount of suction they create at such depths calls for a great 

deal of respect and caution from the divers. Their hands, feet, 

or equipment could get stuck in the holes, slowing production 

or even causing serious injury or equipment malfunction.

The 86th divers worked continually for three days alongside the Soldiers of the 50th MRBC and the USACE engineers 

and operators to fix the dam. The divers used underwater 

hydraulic drilling equipment to install a 200-pound patch 

fabricated by USACE engineers, bolting it onto the face of the 

dam to cover the holes. The patch was equipped with fittings 

to pump in a two-part grout that would expand as it came into 

contact with the water and fill the voids in the concrete where 

the water was leaking through. After the diving evolutions were 

completed, dam operators reported that the flow of water into 

the inspection gallery of the dam had completely stopped. 

The mission was a success that benefited all the parties 

involved. The mission was cost-efficient for USACE, and 

the Soldiers of the Army Dive Company and the 50th MRBC 

gained invaluable training experience. The Army Dive 

Company has an ongoing relationship with USACE districts 

across the country and has worked with the Little Rock District 

in the past. Dive missions such as the repairs performed on 

Table Rock Dam allow the company to execute real-world 

training stateside to prepare it for its wartime mission, while 

providing a professional service to USACE. The Army Dive 

Company continues to foster its relationship with USACE 

and looks forward to future training experiences with it.

First Lieutenant Destremps is a platoon leader with the 

86th Engineer Team (Dive). Commissioned through the 

Army Reserve Officer Training Corps, he is a graduate of 

the Engineer Officer Basic Course and the Sapper Leader 

Course at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and the Marine 

Engineer Dive Officer School at Panama City, Florida. He 

holds a bachelor’s in mechanical engineering from Villanova 

University.

Soldiers load gear onto the float bridge before moving it to the face of the dam.
Honorable mentions: $100,

consideration for publication

in Military Review, and a 

	 certificate.

Papers should be submitted with an enrollment form 

via e-mail, or in hard copy with a CD, not later than

2 June 2008. Send e-mail submissions to <milrevweb@conus.

army.mil>. Mail hard copies with CDs to Military Review, 294 

Grant Avenue, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027-1254. For

more details­—to include a copy of the enrollment form, criteria 

for judging, and a list of potential topics—visit Military 

Review online at <http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/

index.asp>.

For other information concerning the competition, contact 

the managing editor of Military Review at (913) 684-9330 or 

DSN 552-9330 or via e-mail at <leav-milrevweb@conus.army.

mil>.

For the 2008 General William E. DePuy Special Topics ■

Writing Competition, Military Review seeks original papers on 

“Actions Required to Attain Overall Objectives in the Aftermath 

of Combat Operations.” Submissions should be from 3,500 to

7,000 words and should be unclassified, carefully researched

papers on any topic examining issues related to post-combat 

operations. Previously published papers, or papers pending

consideration for publication elsewhere, are ineligible.

Winners, who will be announced in July 2008, will receive 

the following:

1st place: $1,000, featured publication in a future edition

of Military Review, and a certificate.

2d place: $750, publication in Military Review, and a

	 certificate.

3d place: $500, publication in Military Review, and a

	 certificate.

4th place: $250, special consideration for publication

in Military Review, and a certificate.

■

■

■

■

44 Engineer January-March 2008

I dig the holes and cut the grass

I am an Engineer

I rake the leaves and set the chairs

I am an Engineer

I survey the land and make the maps

I am an Engineer

I make the roads and clear the track

I am an Engineer

When you need emplacements, dams, and minefields, call me

I am an Engineer

I lay the bridges that troops will cross

I am an Engineer

I have endured through time and seasoned with age

I am an Engineer

I have crossed the deep blue seas and reached into space

I am an Engineer

In love and hate, in peace or war

I am an Engineer

Male and female, private or general

I am an Engineer

And when I’m dead, let it be said

I am an Engineer

By Sergeant First Class Samuel S. Ramseur, Jr.

Military Review

2008 Writing Competition

This poem by Sergeant First Class Ramseur was first published in the OCT-NOV-DEC 1977 issue of The Engineer (now known as Engineer, 

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers). Before retiring from the Army, his many assignments included Senior Equal Opportunity Advisor

to the Commanding General, United States Army Engineer Center, Fort Belvoir, Virgina. He is now associated with Jones-Ramseur Management

Resources and IMAGES Consortium, Alexandria, Virginia, as an Equal Employment Opportunity consultant.

The Engineer
January-March 2008 Engineer 45

The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, 

and the Mississippi Gulf Coast,

by Douglas Brinkley, Harper 

Perennial: New York, 2006, 

678 pages, ISBN: 978-0-06-

114849-1, $17.95 (paper). 

The environment in which 

the United States Army 

provides support to civil 

authorities during disaster 

response is very complex. The 

dynamic interaction of local 

and national politics, crisis 

management, and general disorder requires understanding 

and preparation in order to effectively deal with disaster 

response. The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New 

Orleans, and the Mississippi Gulf Coast by Douglas 

Brinkley of Tulane University is one of the first accounts 

of Hurricane Katrina and her aftermath and effectively 

captures the feel of a disaster response, while highlighting 

the friction points. 

Brinkley provides a compelling account of the events of 

27 August to 3 September 2005, during Hurricane Katrina. 

He has unique perspective (and perhaps motivation) as an 

eyewitness to Katrina. His writing style is slightly sarcastic, 

but also engaging. His work is meticulously researched from 

contemporary sources, weaving together vignettes from New 

Orleans citizens, government leaders, and news accounts into 

. . . . .

Hog Pilots, Blue Water 

Grunts, by Robert D. Kaplan, 

Random House: New York, 

2007, 388 pages, ISBN-10:1-40

00-6133-4, $27.95 (hardcover).

Robert Kaplan is known for 

providing well-written commentary on events of the day. 

His unique travelogue writing 

style captures the reader, while 

serving as a vehicle for offering 

observations on larger issues. 

In Hog Pilots, Blue Water 

Grunts, he effectively uses this device to deliver a compelling 

look at the U.S. military in action that manages to also offer 

provocative thoughts on how the military instrument of power 

can most effectively be used in the future.

Kaplan’s premise is simple—in warfare of the future, the 

smaller the military footprint and the earlier the military is 

engaged, the more effective that military activity will be. He 

argues that low-profile engagements and use of proxies are 

the best use of the military instrument of power. This premise 

is the underpinning of every vignette he develops in this 

book. He examines the importance of personal relationships, 

understanding cultures, and decentralized initiative in the 

execution of policy decisions. He also does a commendable job 

of describing the unique culture of the military organizations 

he travelled with and observed. 

Kaplan takes readers on a whirlwind journey across the

globe, introducing them to life on Navy destroyers and 

submarines, Marine platoons, Army Special Forces detachments, Air Force flying wings, and Defense Attaché Offices. 

He offers a smattering of history and geography to complement 

vignettes regarding the people who put boots on the ground. 

He clearly has a deep affinity with the Noncommissioned 

Officer Corps of all the Services.

The only criticism I can muster is that Kaplan is too 

invested in so-called elite formations. The only conventional 

Army unit he visits is the 172d Stryker Brigade, and he clearly 

considers it something apart from the rest of the conventional 

Army because of its unique capabilities. A thread of disdain for 

the larger institutional military runs through his work. Perhaps 

Kaplan is influenced by his close affinity with the unique units 

he travelled with. His specific and implied criticisms of the 

conventional Army ring hollow. He doesn’t invest the time 

with conventional units and conventional headquarters that 

he does with the unique and elite. 

I highly recommend Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts. 

Kaplan is an engaging storyteller, offers interesting 

perspectives on political and international events, and makes 

interesting arguments concerning the use of military power. 

His observations about the future of military operations are 

worthy of reflective thought. 

Reviewed by Lieutenant Colonel Stephen V. Tennant, 

United States Army (Retired), Assistant Professor, Command 

and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

. . . . .

(continued on page 46)
46 Engineer January-March 2008

a gripping narrative. He takes a critical look at what happened 

in New Orleans and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the Gulf 

Coast and largely achieves his goal of writing a “...fast out of 

the gates history...” that enables “...holding city, state, and 

federal government officials responsible for their actions....” 

He is unflinching in his description of events, dispensing 

both high praise and harsh criticism to key participants. 

He gives high marks to the United States Coast Guard, the 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the state 

of Texas, the city of Houston, and individual citizens too 

numerous to mention here. His harshest criticism is aimed 

at city officials and institutions in New Orleans, in particular 

Mayor Ray Nagin, Police Chief Eddie Compass, and the 

New Orleans Police Department. He is also very critical of 

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, whom he 

says should be accountable for much of the slow start to 

the federal response and, in particular, the ineptitude of the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

Brinkley is strangely reticent in his criticism of Governor 

Kathleen Blanco, assigning responsibility to the city and the 

federal government that perhaps should accrue to the Blanco 

administration. He is also quite critical of President Bush, 

with some justification. At times, he goes too far; for example, 

stating (sourced from one opinion article, after the fact) that 

the slow federal response was due in part to partisan political 

considerations. With all the administration mismanagement 

and slow decision making available to critique, this vignette 

seems unnecessary and inflammatory. 

The good and bad of the Department of Defense response 

are highlighted throughout Brinkley’s work. His major 

criticism of the military isn’t the response, but rather the 

perceived slow start and heavy-handedness in dealing with 

local officials. Brinkley harshly criticizes the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the failure of the 

levee systems and the loss of buffering wetlands in Louisiana. 

In doing so, he doesn’t adequately address the involvement 

(or lack thereof) of the congress, state government, and local 

authorities. Even so, his criticisms are valid and should be 

studied and considered in order to provide more effective 

military disaster response in the future.

I highly recommend this book to all engineer officers. 

Support to civil authority, in particular disaster response, is 

a full-spectrum operation that the United States Army has 

executed many times. USACE and engineer troop units are 

typically deeply involved in disaster responses. Understanding 

the environment and reflecting on mistakes made in crisis 

is critical. This book offers a perspective that professionals 

should study and understand in order to be effective. 

Reviewed by Lieutenant Colonel Stephen V. Tennant, 

United States Army (Retired), Assistant Professor, Command 

and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

vertical general engineering missions; meeting contingency 

and contracting requirements; and conducting reconstruction, humanitarian, and JIIM operations, regardless of Service. This program supports the leader competency effort by 

sharing knowledge of military construction skills and capabilities. Engineer training centers will collaborate to teach 

Service cultures and languages to all exchange members. 

This concept establishes Service engineer partnerships with 

civilian educational institutions to establish an engineer degree program and professional technical certifications for our 

engineers to develop a Department of Defense (DOD) system of expert engineers.

Military and Industry Strategic Alliance Program

This concept enhances the commonality and interoperability of DOD engineer joint equipping and procurement processes. The alliance program would establish ways to develop 

a common equipping process to provide like engineer equipment to all Services. Most notable is the partnership with industry to build a civilian equipment-training program. Within 

military organizations, the program identifies the strengths 

of each Service’s engineers and includes ways to minimize 

challenges based on unique strengths, capabilities, and skills 

the other Services possess. Equipment standardization agreements allow forces to train on the same equipment within the 

training centers, matching the equipment systems currently 

used in theater operations. 

Conclusion

Today’s fight demands that engineers have expertise in 

planning war, peace, and reconstruction operations. 

The common thread is joint training and education. 

The type of mission support being performed also drives the 

process differences to perform engineering tasks. Engineers 

have to be educated and trained on combat engineering, contracts, procurement processes, project funding, project management, construction management planning tools, largescale infrastructure planning, base camp planning, general 

engineering skills, and more. The personnel working these 

tasks are becoming more junior in grade, and yet joint billets 

require them to be smarter in operational planning and arrive in-theater with technically competent skill sets and joint 

engineer knowledge. This is the key to assisting combatant 

commands with engineer capabilities both inside and outside 

the wire. Leaders from the joint engineer community recognize the gaps and are taking great initiatives to provide the 

appropriate level of training and education to every echelon 

of the force. 

Ms. Walkenbach is a contractor with C2 Technologies, 

Inc., and works in the Directorate of Training and Leader 

Development, United States Army Engineer School, Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri.

For more information, contact the author at <rachel.

m.walkenbach>.

(“Joint Engineering,” continued from page 26) (“Book Review,” continued from page 45)
January-March 2008 Engineer 47

J

ust 15 miles south of Ketchikan, Alaska, in a remote 

region of the Inside Passage, lies a pristine island rain 

forest known as Annette Island. It was founded by 

Anglican missionary William Duncan and 800 Tsimshian 

Indians in 1887, and in 1891, by Congressional Act, it became

the Annette Island Reservation. In 1916, all waters and inlets 

within 3,000 feet of the island’s shoreline were included. 

Today, Annette Island and its surrounding islands comprise 

the only Indian reservation in Alaska. Metlakatla, with 1,800 

residents, is the only inhabited village on the 136-square-mile 

island.

During World War II, a large airfield was built on the 

island as part of a defense network for the Canadian and 

American forces. After the war, the airfield became a United 

States Coast Guard search-and-rescue base, as well as a 

weather station for the United States Weather Bureau. For 

a brief period, the Federal Aviation Administration based 

personnel on-site. Until recently, it was the largest airfield in 

Alaska and continued to serve the area commercially until the 

1970s. With the completion of the new Ketchikan Airport on

Gravina Island, and the transfer of the Coast Guard Station to 

Sitka in 1977, Annette Field officially closed.

The Project

Operation Alaskan Road is the fulfillment of a

50-year-old promise made to the Metlakatla Indian 

Community after World War II—by the Alaska 

Road Commission and the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers—to build a road connecting their ocean side city 

to Alaska’s Inside Passage. This would allow year-round 

ferry service to Ketchikan, Alaska’s fourth largest city. The 

economy of Metlakatla is poor because of limited mobility to 

jobs and trade centers in Ketchikan, and the unemployment 

rate hovers near 80 percent. 

Designated as an Innovative Readiness Training 

Program, Operation Alaskan Road was under the overall 

responsibility of the Alaskan Command, with the Missouri 

Army National Guard filling key leadership positions and 

providing engineering expertise. The road—14.3 miles of 

paved two-lane road with no more than a 7-degree grade 

in the roadbed—was a challenge seldom seen by military 

engineers. Clearing the dense vegetation (muskeg, which was 

sometimes 25 feet deep),1 blasting and moving 1.5 million 

cubic yards of rock, and an average annual rainfall of 13 feet 

challenged the military engineers’ expertise. Because of the 

By Ms. Vicki D. Hall
48 Engineer January-March 2008

inclement weather, work on the project 

was limited to spring through late 

summer, so the project took 10 years to 

complete—from 1998 to 2007.

In preparation for the 1998 arrival 

of construction forces, Navy Seabees 

constructed Base Camp Wy Wuh in 

1997. The joint task force consisted of 

Army National Guard, Navy Reserve, 

United States Marine Corps, and United 

States Air Force units—mostly on 

rotational 2-week training cycles. In all, 

approximately 12,000 personnel, from 

all branches of the military Services 

and civilian agencies, contributed their 

expertise and labor to make the dream 

become reality. 

Safety

While building the road was 

an extraordinary humanitarian mission, an equally impressive achievement is the safety record—not one case of a lost limb or 

loss of life during the 10-year project. An initial accident 

probability analysis performed by the United States Army 

Maneuver Support Center (MANSCEN) Safety Office, Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri, in 1999 identified that statistically, 

17 fatalities could be expected over the programmed 10-year 

project. Commanders developed an aggressive risk analysis of 

the hazards, which included personnel inexperience, adverse 

weather conditions, water operations, blasting and quarrying, 

heavy equipment operation in mountainous terrain, clearing 

of vegetation, quantity and condition of equipment, and 

supplies. 

Change became the norm: weather conditions changed by 

the hour, personnel availability fluctuated from day to day, 

and there were equipment shortages and a lack of supplies, 

The Metlakatla Indian community celebrates completion of the road.

This bridge was 

constructed to 

accommodate 

a scenic stream 

and waterfall 

from the mountains above.
January-March 2008 Engineer 49

all creating an ever-changing set of challenges. If there 

ever was a testing ground for the risk management process, 

Operation Alaskan Road was it. Risk assessments were 

prepared, revised, and reviewed continuously. Assessments 

were briefed to everyone, every day, and followed explicitly. 

Oversight took on a new definition as every member of the 

team monitored all operations; everyone was a safety officer. 

And it worked, but it did not come easily. 

Challenges

Because Annette Island has no infrastructure outside 

of Metlakatla’s city limits, personnel, equipment, and 

supplies had to be brought to the island by barge or 

boat. There were many challenges. 

By Sea. Equipment and personnel were transported by 

military watercraft several times every day. Global Positioning 

Systems (GPS) were installed to provide safer and more 

efficient travel routes. Prior to departure of any watercraft, 

“man overboard” drills were conducted and briefings were 

presented to ensure that all passengers knew exactly what to 

do in the event of an emergency. Water temperatures were 

extreme, and a passenger who fell overboard would quickly 

become incapacitated from the cold. 

By Land. Access to the coastal 

project sites by land was a rugged, 

one-lane pioneer logging road cut into 

the steep mountainside during 1960s 

logging activities. Because of changes 

in elevation, rain quickly became sleet 

and snow midway through the 45- to 

60-minute drive. During the first year 

of construction, vehicles frequently met 

nose to nose on treacherous mountain 

passes. To alleviate the difficulty this 

was creating, a two-way traffic pattern 

was implemented to keep everything 

flowing in only one direction at a time. 

Speed limits were established and strictly 

enforced. Radio communications were 

improved, and military police were 

assigned to provide better tracking and 

movement of equipment and personnel.

Equipment Maintenance and 

Fueling Operations. Hemlock Bay consisted of a K-span building that housed 

the maintenance facility, plus there was 

a motor pool facility and a fueling point. 

A vehicle junkyard was the most frequent 

source of spare parts, because shipment 

of new parts took precious time. The 

Marines, who operated the bulk fuel point, 

received fuel deliveries by barge. Fuel 

trucks then delivered fuel to equipment 

on the project sites and were in constant 

movement. 

Medical. Annual rainfall in southeast Alaska averages 

13 feet. Personnel were highly susceptible to what became 

commonly referred to as “the Ketchikan crud,” an affliction 

characterized by upper respiratory and/or gastrointestinal 

upset. Medical officers were added to the duration staff, 

substantially improving the degree of first-line medical 

treatment. Medics staffed ambulances at the job sites to 

provide emergency care for workers. The United States Coast 

Guard, located in Ketchikan, treated illnesses or injuries that 

were more serious. Chaplains were always on the job site, 

providing not only spiritual inspiration but also hot soup and 

hot chocolate, which dramatically improved worker morale 

in the cold and rain.

Utilities. All electricity had to be generated on-site. Base 

Camp Wy Wuh consisted of Southeast Asia (SEA) huts that 

housed administrative offices, barracks, warehouses, tool 

rooms, a post exchange/base exchange (PX/BX), a dining 

facility, showers and latrines, and laundry facilities. A water 

treatment plant was constructed to produce clean drinking 

water, and a wastewater treatment plant was constructed 

as well. Military technicians monitored all operations and 

equipment to ensure the health and safety of personnel at the 

base camp.

Personnel faced enormous challenges while drilling and blasting for the 

roadway.
50 Engineer January-March 2008

Wildlife Considerations

Eagles are abundant on the island, and 

strict protection of their habitat by the 

Fish, Game, and Wildlife Service ensures 

their continued survival. Military operations 

were conducted while carefully observing 

the habitat of indigenous animals, plants, and 

wildlife. If an eagle were nesting, operations 

would be suspended pending the hatching of the 

chicks.

Environmental Considerations

An agreement was made with the 

Metlakatla Indian Community that the 

island would be as environmentally 

unspoiled upon departure as it was when the 

project started. The fuel point and maintenance 

facilities were in continuous operation, providing 

fuel to equipment by day and receiving barge 

shipments of replacement fuel by night. Even 

in the hurried pace of repairing equipment, any 

products spilled were immediately remedied. All vehicles 

were equipped with spill kits to use if they encountered a 

spill. Rank did not matter when a spill was discovered; it was 

reported and taken care of by personnel in the area.

Project Success

All hardships aside, Operation Alaskan Road provided 

participants an experience that one may encounter 

only once in a lifetime. It’s not often you go to work 

surrounded by scenic mountain vistas, eagles in their natural 

habitat, clear blue lakes, and a serene beauty that can only be 

Alaska. The overwhelming safety record is a direct reflection 

on strong command oversight and individual commitment 

to success. The success of this project is absolute proof that 

risk management, when conducted properly, can produce 

dramatic, positive results. 

On 6 August 2007, the road was turned over to the Metlakatla 

Indian Community in a lavish day-long celebration filled with 

native dancing, music, and cuisine. Military Service members 

were finally able to meet and visit with the people for whom 

the road was built. Until now, only a few staff members had 

been able to visit the village by boat. The Federal Highway 

Administration will complete the remaining paving, striping, 

guardrails, and road signage. 

On 15 September 2007, the Missouri Army National 

Guard lowered its flag; the military mission was complete. 

Approximately 12,000 military Service members constructed a lifeline to the mainland for the people of the 

Metlakatla Indian Community. Training in a real-world 

setting provided the participants an opportunity to 

experience conditions impossible to replicate in a training 

facility. 

But that’s not where this story ends; to all those who 

participated, there is a sense of being a part of something you 

can’t quite name: the inner pride of knowing all the hard work 

will significantly enhance the quality of life for a small group 

of Alaskan natives for generations to come. When asked what 

they would do with the road, the tribal elders replied, “We 

don’t know yet, but our children will!” 

Ms. Hall is a Safety Specialist at the MANSCEN Safety 

Office, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, serving the United 

States Army Engineer School and the 1st Engineer Brigade.

Endnote

1 Muskeg, or peat bog, is like a soggy blanket that covers 

more than 10 percent of southeast Alaska. Consisting of dead 

plants in various stages of decomposition, it provides a home 

for a variety of plants that thrive in the wet, acid soil. In the 

summer, the flowers on many of them provide a carpet of soft 

color that contrasts with the muted greens and browns typical 

of muskeg. The soil conditions prevent large trees from 

growing, although stunted shore pine, cottonwood, some 

species of willow, and black spruce can be found. Stepping on 

muskeg is like stepping on a sponge, and the holes that form in 

it can be quite deep and dangerous. Construction in muskegladen areas sometimes requires removing the soil and filling 

the area with gravel. If the muskeg is not completely cleared 

to bedrock, then its high water content will cause buckling 

and distortion from winter freezing, much like permafrost.

Note: For more information on Joint Task Force Operation 

Alaskan Road, go to <http://www.elmendorf.af.mil/alcom/

alaskanroad/index.asp>.

During Operation Alaskan Road, nearly the entire length of the road 

had to be cut out of the side of the mountains.
January-March 2008 Engineer 51

By now many senior engineer leaders have completed 

one or more tours in Afghanistan or Iraq and have 

been responsible for construction on one level or 

another. As many of us return for a second or third tour, we 

often go back to see the legacy we left. Some of us marvel at 

our work, while others think, “If I could do it over again, I 

would do it differently.” We are now at a point where we need 

to challenge the presumption that our standards for theater of 

operation construction have been correct. Does it make sense 

in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility 

to build structures out of wood? This article will give some 

reasons why we have pursued this current course and why we 

should change our policy and perhaps our doctrine as they 

relate to the counterinsurgency fight. It also leads us down 

the road of how we need to train our junior leaders to be 

successful in fighting our current and most probable future 

conflicts.

Most engineers have been involved in troop construction 

in Afghanistan and Iraq and have seen a lot of problems with 

continued construction of wooden buildings in the harsh 

desert environments. The larger problem is that the temporary 

nature of these structures may send the wrong message to 

our coalition partners, as well as our enemies, about our 

commitment to win. One could argue that an American force 

that builds structures like Southwest Asia (SWA) huts is not 

committed to fight a long counterinsurgency or commit to a 

national support effort. 

Beyond the question of appearances, there are many other 

valid reasons to build structures that endure. We should change 

our materials from wood to local materials for several reasons: 

availability, suitability, and transportation of materials; pest 

problems; fire protection issues; and protection from indirect 

fire. Using local materials solves many of these issues and 

also addresses questions of life-cycle costs, quality-of-life 

issues, transportation limitations, economic stimulus through 

procurement of materials and labor, and the issue of eventual 

transition of facilities to the host nation.

History

How did six months become the expeditionary 

standard for construction? Over the past 30 years, 

very few conflicts or operations have lasted less 

than six months. In Vietnam, most U.S. forces operated out 

of forward bases that were built to expeditionary standards 

but which always had logistics and support bases that were 

designed for 5- to 10-year operations. Even shorter conflicts 

such as Desert Shield and Desert Storm lasted longer than six 

months. As we continue operations into the seventh year in 

Afghanistan and the fifth year in Iraq, it is time to challenge 

these standards and build the structures we need for the wars 

we actually fight.

When I attended the Engineer Officer Basic Course in 

1991, we were on the cusp of the revolution of automation 

at the tactical construction level. The traditional method used 

the Army Facilities Component System (AFCS) charts to 

plan and design. The charts, with 3⁄4-size drawings of SWA 

huts and other standard structures, were used to determine 

Time to Raise the Standards

By Lieutenant Colonel Joseph D. Tyron

20th Engineer Brigade combat patch

Theater Construction

Management System:
52 Engineer January-March 2008

bill of materials requirements, additional tools required, haul 

assets, and projections for man-hours. Most of us were told 

that we would soon be migrating to the Theater Construction 

Management System (TCMS), which would automate the 

process with embedded computer-aided design and scalable 

and site-adaptable drawings. It was a great improvement over 

AFCS, but it was decided that our focus as engineers would be 

on breaching and mechanizing our force. I remember a senior 

engineer leader asking me, “Do you want to be a plumber or 

a killer?” That philosophy worked during Operation Desert 

Storm, but has not been effective during Operation Iraqi 

Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. I’m sure today’s 

senior Army leaders would prefer that engineers be as good at 

plumbing as they are at killing.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the time we should 

have devoted to construction was diverted to training on 

combined arms breaching and other tactics used at the National 

Training Center at Fort Irwin, California. Sadly, much of 

the construction program of instruction in our professional 

military education courses was deleted. A six-month facility 

lifespan for an expeditionary theater construction standard 

persisted even though we moved toward many missions that 

would have inherent reconstruction tasks.

The Roman Empire was one of the greatest of all times. 

There can be arguments about territorial gains, military 

conquests, and advancements in science, law, culture, and 

architecture, but few historians would dispute the idea that 

the Romans mastered all things in their sphere of influence. 

Of particular note was the Roman commitment to building 

throughout their empire. Nearly everywhere they went, they 

left lasting structures. One important idea from Roman military 

operations is relevant to the theater of operations construction 

standards today: the building of high-quality, long-lasting 

infrastructure in contested territories. Roman legions built 

great structures, roads, aqueducts, and permanent structures 

using locally available labor and materials. These structures 

contributed to the material welfare of the province or territory 

but also left a more lasting influence on the local culture’s 

architecture and social organization. 

We are certainly not the Romans, but we can take a lesson 

from the legions on building structures to last. What does 

a six-month life-cycle structure say about America and our 

commitment to the region? Clearly, whether it is popular or 

not, nation stability operations and reconstruction operations 

are going to be in our doctrine in order to terminate wars in a 

way that actually achieves our political objectives and allows 

us to engage and support emerging allies. 

As obvious and logical as the historical reference may be, 

we still primarily use wooden structures for coalition facilities 

in Afghanistan and Iraq. Let us look at the reasons of concern 

over this standard of construction.

Wood is not a building material found in large quantities 

in Afghanistan, Iraq, or the Horn of Africa. It doesn’t 

hold up well in harsh, dry climates where intense heat 

and low humidity distort wood and cause quality

problems. 

Central Asia and Iraq are arid regions and lack water

resources and infrastructure. With that in mind, we need

to take fire protection more seriously. Fires in wood 

■

■

Soldiers from the 20th Engineer Brigade prepare to deliver wood throughout the battlefield to support engineering 

projects.
January-March 2008 Engineer 53

structures and tents can be devastating, and the danger 

doesn’t have to come from a careless Soldier; it can be

poor electrical work or indirect fire. 

Termites are an unseen threat. On average, we will have

termite problems within six to twelve months of building

a wood structure in these regions. 

A large amount of costly lift assets is required to move

lumber to the region. Our supply lines in Afghanistan and

Iraq are long and vulnerable. Class IV supplies are

difficult to transport, compete with other high-priority

supplies, and put Soldiers’ lives at risk by increasing their 

exposure to dangers on the roads of Afghanistan and

Iraq. 

Indirect fires continue to be a problem, and rocket and 

mortar attacks are an everyday event in both theaters. 

Based on these concerns, most people can understand 

why our system should change, but to what standard and 

when? There is a time and place to use wood, but it is more 

cost-effective to go directly from tents to concrete and block 

buildings. It will be helpful to qualify a couple of inverse rules 

that apply in Afghanistan and Iraq. First, local labor is cheap 

and materials are expensive. Of course this seems obvious, 

but in the United States it is completely the opposite. Second, 

construction materials may not always be readily available 

and lead times are longer than in the United States or Europe. 

Seen through this lens, it will be easier to understand the logic 

of some of the following arguments.

In our current active theaters, the predominant local 

construction material is not wood but block and stone. Block 

and concrete construction is ideal for the environment in the 

Middle East and Central Asia. It is the predominant medium 

for most commercial construction. There are not many 

wood structures in Afghanistan and Iraq because wood has 

primarily been for support components and fuels in these 

countries. All dimension lumber has to be imported, but block 

is made nearly everywhere in the Middle East and Central 

Asia. Cement and rock products are in abundance all over the 

region, and there is an experience base in working with these 

products. Although their techniques make less efficient use of 

labor than our own, this is not a serious problem since labor 

is the least expensive component of the construction process 

and a coalition goal is to maximize local labor.

Aside from the obvious cost of building and rebuilding with 

wood, the issue of operations and maintenance rears its head. 

Every time a wood structure has to be rebuilt, there is a need 

to rewire and replumb. This raises the costs exponentially, 

and the problem is worse when we consider we are working 

on the third iteration of facility rebuilding or replacement in 

many locations. In some instances, Afghan and Iraqi soldiers 

have better facilities than American Service members.

Protecting wooden and light metal facilities from indirect 

fire is costly, but that problem could be solved by constructing 

buildings with block and concrete deck roofs. This would 

■

■

■

lower the risk of fire hazard and conserve fire protection 

assets while protecting our forces against mortar, rocket, and 

artillery fire. The problem of construction technique could 

be overcome with training and supervision to get a good 

quality product. It would also cut down on transportation 

costs, because block can be produced on-site and in the 

local economy. Instead of having to buy the most expensive 

imported building materials available in the overseas market, 

U.S. forces could buy inexpensive, locally-produced building 

materials right outside the gate. U.S. forces are constantly 

looking for programs to stimulate economic development in 

nation-building operations. Unfortunately, sweeping streets 

and cleaning canals does not do enough to stimulate an 

economy. If we employed more local nationals and taught 

them to build to Western standards, the benefits would be 

immense. In addition to improving war-ravaged countries, 

it could create a workforce that could move throughout the 

region and help contribute money to the economies of their 

home countries. This can be seen in the large numbers of 

third-country nationals working in Korea, Turkey, Indonesia, 

China, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

In a previous assignment with the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) in Afghanistan, we built many 

of our projects for the Afghan National Army (ANA) with 

local materials such as stone and with cement block made onsite. The projects employed more than 5,000 Afghans across 

the country and gave the ANA lasting facilities.

The last and most important outcome of using local 

materials might be transition, because that is our ultimate 

goal in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our ticket out of these theaters 

of operation is a long-term security apparatus. Changing our 

theater-of-operation construction standards would provide a 

short-term sustainment facility for coalition forces and would 

represent capital in the eventual transition of U.S. forces. 

A sustainable city with electricity, water, and waste water 

management would be a much more attractive bargaining 

chip than a base of aging and dilapidated SWA huts.

The Way Ahead

What is the way ahead for military engineers? 

First, we need to review and revise construction 

standards in the CENTCOM Sand Book and 

the TCMS. Our standards need to be flexible enough to 

consider all factors. Cost, life cycle, transportation assets, 

fire protection, force protection, external commitment to our 

coalition partners, and host nation economic stimulus need 

to be addressed. Senior leaders should study current theater 

of operations construction standards in order to rectify the 

problems addressed in this article. 

Second, we need to change our wartime construction 

paradigm. We should plan to go for the long term—3 to

5 years, including post-conflict operations and stabilization 

operations—and should adopt a two-prong construction 

strategy: (Continued on page 57)
54 Engineer January-March 2008

As I returned from the United States Army Engineer 

School’s Precommand Course, I reflected on 

the term that kept coming up during the course 

– pentathlete. (See editor’s note at end of article.)

I remember the best-known of all modern pentathletes, 

General George Smith Patton, Jr.—who competed at the 

1912 Summer Olympics in Stockholm, Sweden—but I tried 

to bring the term into a more contemporary setting. 

At the time I attended the Precommand Course, I served as 

the Deputy G3 of the 412th Engineer Command (ENCOM), an 

Army Reserve unit headquartered in Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

The G3 section had the following sections (each headed by a 

lieutenant colonel, a major, or a senior civilian):

Operations

Training

Mobilization and Readiness

Force Management

Emergency Operations Center

Budget and Funds Management

In the past 24 months, the 412th experienced one of its 

most intense time periods—a veritable “perfect storm” of 

major operations, including the Army Reserve command and 

control (ARC2) transformation with an end state of three 

subordinate brigades, located in an area that spans the tip of 

Maine to the tip of Florida and all the way westward to the 

Mississippi River. The perfect storm also included engineer 

transformation to modularity, which transformed more than 

80 percent of those subordinate units into separate “AA” 

entities as low as the company and detachment levels. The 

last “front” of the perfect storm was support to the War on 

Terrorism, in which the 412th ENCOM mobilized not only 

multiple rotations of staff to support the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) Gulf Region Division, but it 

also included a major mobilization of a subordinate battalion 

that was fast-tracked through transformation while at the 

mobilization station.

Army Reserve Pentathlete Triad

I

tried to take this environment, especially for an Army 

Reserve unit, and put it into the context of the pentathlete 

skills required to succeed. After great reflection, I realized 

that the Citizen-Soldiers in the Army Reserve are pentathletes 

in their own right (aside from the pentathlete skills required for 

■

■

■

■

■

■

success on an echelon-above- brigade engineer staff, 

which I will discuss later in the article). The vehicle 

I will use for visualizing the basic Army Reserve pentathlete skills is a triangle with two 

added dimensions (a triad), which is shown in Figure 1.

Competencies

The triad represents balance in a pentathlete’s life. 

Everything we do in life has balance, even more so as a CitizenSoldier. Through the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) 

Model, the Citizen-Soldier has the added responsibility to 

become a Citizen-Warrior and then a Warrior-Citizen through 

the mobilization and deployment process. 

Army Reserve pentathletes must possess the following 

five competencies, and they also need to maintain them in 

balance: 

By Lieutenant Colonel Adam S. Roth

The Engineer Staff Pentathlete:

Figure 1. Army Reserve Pentathlete Triad

Staff Leadership and Dimensions

for Success in a Transforming World

Beliefs

Beliefs

Beliefs

Work

Fitness

Family Army

Reserve
January-March 2008 Engineer 55

Work. Civilian employment responsibilities (enable us to 

maintain a standard of living).

Family. Family responsibilities (why we are here).

Army Reserve. Army Reserve responsibilities (why we

serve). 

Fitness (using a healthy lifestyle to maintain our bodies).

This is in itself a challenge because most civilian

employers do not put “PT” on the work schedules.

Beliefs (how we hold all of the other dimensions

together). When speaking of beliefs, we are also talking

our value system, and the Army Values are at the forefront. 

I am also speaking of the values inculcated in each

pentathlete through a family support network. Lastly, our 

beliefs—be they spiritual, metaphysical, or otherwise—

are a strong driving force in keeping the entire pentathlete

triad in balance.

Using the basic pentathlete triad, I then thought of the 

basic competencies that successful staff officers and leaders 

I observed throughout my career required in order to be 

successful, and how those competencies were applied in 

the “perfect storm” environment at the 412th ENCOM. The 

majority of the G3 staff had deployed at least once, either 

prior to or during my tenure as the Deputy G3, creating a core 

of staff officers and noncommissioned officers who became a 

division G3 staff overnight, despite being manned at a level 

between a battalion or brigade S3 staff.

Bosses

Bosses were even more crucial in this analysis. Running 

concurrent operations on three separate continents, while also 

maintaining enduring (and growing) command and control 

missions, did not leave much room for intense supervision. 

The one key, more than any other, for the G3, as well as for 

the chiefs of subordinate sections, was the establishment of a 

right and left limit. The challenge in establishing that right and 

left limit, as done primarily in initial face-to-face counseling, 

is also ensuring that sometimes connectivity between sections 

within the G3, as well as between staff sections, may portend 

“going out of their lane.” The key point, especially for younger 

field grade officers on their first echelon-above-brigade staff 

assignment, is to know the difference between coordinating 

activities and directing activities. Explaining this difference 

is the key to managing expectations and will ensure success 

as the new staff officer embarks on the route of developing 

advocates and enabling connectivity.

Engineer Staff Pentathletes

Looking at the breadth of knowledge required for a staff 

officer on an echelon-above-brigade staff, especially 

in the G3, it was pretty easy to say that what we need 

are officers who have had company command, are Command 

and General Staff Officer Course/Intermediate-Level 

Education (CGSOC/ILE) Program graduates, and possess 

the very nebulous term “operators.” I have broken down the 

■

■

■

■

■

competencies (either brought to the table or developed during 

their tenure) that have been critical in their personal success, 

as well as the joint success of the G3 section as a whole (see 

Figure 2).

Breaking down the triad into individual parts, there are 

many facets to the success at the echelon-above-brigade staff 

level. Whereas each member of the staff may not have had all 

competencies fully matured, this model has served as a goal 

to strive for during the duration of assignment within the G3.

Warfighting Skills

Each team member was part of the 412th ENCOM, which 

serves as an operational command under the ARC2 construct. 

This meant that we were not a continental United States 

(CONUS)-based table of distribution and allowances (TDA) 

organization, but rather had responsibilities supporting major 

contingency operations in both the European Command 

(EUCOM) and Pacific Command (PACOM) areas of 

responsibility.

Warfighting Mission. A major segment of the 412th 

ENCOM mission was to support United States Forces Korea 

in the defense of the Korean peninsula. Members of the G3 

staff routinely deployed to the Republic of Korea to support 

either of two exercises: Ulchi Focus Lens or Reception, 

Staging, Onward Movement & Integration (RSOI). This 

ensured that all team members initiated their fluency with the 

language of war at the operational level, not only from an 

engineer perspective but also on how the engineer is capable 

of setting conditions for success for operational logistics 

through assured mobility as well as operational protection. 

Development and Maintenance of Battle Rhythm. The 

development and maintenance of a battle rhythm in itself 

formed the “heartbeat” of the ENCOM. Situational awareness 

and synchronizations of battle rhythms at higher levels, as 

well as subordinate units and internal to the command, were an 

ongoing process to ensure that the 1/3 - 2/3 rule was enforced 

and that there was a timely response to all coordinating 

agencies.

Figure 2. Engineer Staff Pentathlete Triad

Leadership/

Work Ethic

Work Ethic

Leadership/

Leadership/

Work Ethic

Warfighting

Skills

Competitive

Sales/

Interpersonal

Skills

Technical/

Analytical

Competence

Time/

Resource

Management
56 Engineer January-March 2008

Troop to Task. Assisted by the ARFORGEN Model, 

understanding of unit capabilities in a modular world 

(clearance, vertical, horizontal, equipment support company, 

etc.) and then applying those capabilities along lines of 

time, as well as combat power, enabled greater battlefield 

visualization for the G3 as to how far the force can go without 

reinforcement.

Technical and Analytical Competence

This forms the basis of how engineers (irrespective of 

baccalaureate degree discipline) think, using logic, and are 

able to take the abstract, make it concrete, and turn it into 

reality.

Rise Over Run. Whereas the 412th is an ENCOM, it cannot 

always depend on a degreed engineer with a professional 

engineering license to develop a design directive in either a 

training or deployed environment. Engineer staff pentathletes 

have to be able to satisfy the requirement using available 

means (including Theater Construction Management System 

[TCMS] software and the Engineering Infrastructure and 

Intelligence Reachback Center [EI2RC] through USACE) 

to provide subordinate units the rough order of magnitude 

required from both a scope-of-work and a bill-of-materials 

perspective in order to accomplish what is basically required, 

rather than proscribe the exact 11 over 14 rise-over-run 

solution.

Force Structure. Engineer transformation to modularity 

became a major driving factor in all operations. Engineer 

staff pentathletes needed to not only understand the new 

structures and standard requirement codes (SRCs), but they 

also needed to understand the basis of activation, conversion, 

and inactivation, as well as how a new unit is manned, 

trained, equipped, stationed, and resourced. It is much more 

than just being able to read a modified table of organization 

and equipment (MTOE).

Doctrine Development. The 412th ENCOM, in 

conjunction with USACE and the Engineer School, has been 

collaborating on the revision of many doctrinal publications, 

to include the new FM 3-34, Engineer Operations. Engineer 

staff pentathletes should bring with them a breadth of 

experience that will not only affect the operations of today 

but also have the foresight to reflect on past experience to 

shape the battlespace of tomorrow.

Technology Savvy. Engineer staff pentathletes must be 

able to master the many complexities of the standard Army 

computer software suite (PowerPoint® Rangers included). 

But they also must be able to harness the technology in order 

to share vast amounts of information. They can do this by 

performing the role of “webmaster” for a knowledge center 

on Army Knowledge Online (AKO) or by developing a 

SharePoint® site that allows access to the Army Reserve 

network for many of the troop program unit members of the 

Army Reserve who do not have dedicated access. Engineer 

staff pentathletes should also know the basics of some of 

the teleconferencing suites available, to include the USACE 

TeleEngineering Tool Kit. To stay connected is to stay 

relevant.

Time and Resource Management

Much of what is performed at the ENCOM level is 

management of resources. Engineer staff pentathletes have 

to know the basics of managing those resources (as well as 

being able to ask for more, or worse, to say no).

Training Readiness Oversight. For engineer staff 

pentathletes to know, based on the ARFORGEN Model, what 

level of resourcing a particular unit receives is one part of 

the puzzle. At the major subordinate command (MACOM) 

level, ensuring that units have the basics of transportation, 

ammunition, lodging, and observer-controllers involves 

setting conditions for the management of those programs. 

Having an understanding of contracting, as well as dealing 

with commodity managers, helps ensure that these resources 

are forecasted and eventually executed.

Meetings. Having more and more constituencies to 

become involved with—in order to attain staff synchronization, meetings (including face-to-face, teleconferences, 

video teleconferences, and full-blown conferences)—became 

a way of life for the G3 section. Aside from the mandatory 

agenda and objectives that guided almost every engagement, 

the most important was a Monday morning meeting referred 

to as Festivus (as in Festivus for the Restivus). The purpose 

of this meeting was to provide a sounding board for 

development and refinement of commander’s guidance. The 

key to the event was that everyone had an input, and the 

absolute best development and mentoring came from those 

sessions and created a better product and process with buyin from all.

Funds Management. Engineer staff pentathletes 

frequently become the program managers for major exercises 

or conferences. Therefore, all officers need to attain a 

basic level of financial management skills. Knowledge in 

the development of field budget estimates, unresourced 

requirements, and of course monitoring of funds execution 

became daily staples for the engineer staff pentathlete. Only 

later in the game were we able to rely on dedicated finance 

personnel to assist in these processes, thus already preparing 

those engineer staff pentathletes for the lean staff of the 

contingency operations (CONOPs) environment.

Competitive Sales and Interpersonal Skills

The single greatest task for any engineer staff pentathlete 

was the ability to sell oneself and one’s own ideas. As 

engineers, we become complacent in knowing that the answer 

is 11 over 14, as stated earlier. We lost the bubble on how 

to sell that though, especially to diverse groups that may 

not know (or appreciate) what rise over run is. Pentathletes 

found themselves engaging in intense networking at every 

opportunity, not only to be known but also to get on the radar 

screen of those who were decision makers. With this also 

came relationship management and knowing how well that 
January-March 2008 Engineer 57

alliance would blossom. The most important part of “selling” 

we learned during this period was how to communicate to 

senior-level commanders, in terms of risk, if “A” did not 

happen, what would be the second- and third-order effects of 

that action.

Leadership and Work Ethic

The key element to staff synchronization was the 

leadership required to make it happen. It transcended 

“walking the walk” but also meant going outside of the G3 

“lane” to understand the battle rhythms of other sections 

(and subordinate units) so as not to be too intrusive and 

break the golden 1/3 - 2/3 rule. Additionally, engineer staff 

pentathletes had to know the guidance, intent, and battle 

rhythm of the command group to ensure that subordinate 

execution met the commander’s expectations. Engineer 

staff pentathletes also needed to be able to provide 

counseling to other team members (in writing), reward 

those who excelled and, most importantly, look out for 

their development. 

Summary

To be sure, this was the most rewarding assignment of 

my career—in a career that continues to amaze me 

that each new challenge tops the previous one. The 

complexities that we as engineers find ourselves in, either 

while deployed or preparing for the next deployment, require 

a great deal of depth, transcending original models of technical 

and tactical competence. The staff officer of today has to speak 

and understand the lingua franca of the entire staff, make onthe-spot assessments, and sell it in terms of “what’s in it for 

me,” as well as in terms of risk to commanders at all levels. 

I hope that through this article, the hard work of the 412th 

ENCOM G3 section may serve as a guide for some future (or 

current) engineer staff pentathlete and provide refuge in the 

next “perfect storm.”

Lieutenant Colonel Roth was the Deputy G3 of the 412th 

Engineer Command at the time this article was written. He 

has deployed to Iraq as the executive officer of the 458th 

Engineer Battalion and has commanded a combat heavy 

engineer company. A graduate of the Command and General 

Staff College, he holds a master’s in mechanical engineering 

from Boston University. He now commands the 844th Engineer 

Battalion in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Editor’s Note: Per the Chief of Staff of the Army, the 

term “pentathlete” and “multiskilled” are no longer the 

preferred way to describe the broad capabilities the Army 

needs. The preferred way to describe the type of leaders the 

Army needs is “leaders skilled in their core warfighting and 

leader competencies who also have a variety of broadening 

experiences.” However, this does not detract from the 

essence of Lieutenant Colonel Roth’s article, because he 

clearly articulates the need for engineers to be skilled in 

engineer competencies, while highlighting the importance 

of having a broad experience base.

Develop and use expeditionary construction standards

in the beginning of an operation, including deployable

base camp packages that are already available.

Plan, develop, and build—in concert with the tactical

situation—durable facilities that can be supported with

limited assets. Don’t build temporary structures that

become permanent.

We should modify the CENTCOM Sand Book standards 

and go to permanent construction sooner, when it is clear 

that the national commitment will be long-term. Experience 

demonstrates that this level of commitment is required to 

achieve war termination or accomplish political objectives.

Finally, we need to update our collective skill sets in our 

schools to include instruction on building in block and other 

concrete vertical products. Our technical prowess should 

meet our tactical prowess on the combined arms team. 

That means increasing the investment in our training base 

and working with the latest industry techniques to keep our 

personnel in step with the construction industry. This change 

needs to happen in all engineer advanced individual training 

and officer and noncommissioned officer education courses. 

Also, at the higher staff levels, we need to send junior officers 

to assignments with USACE, public works, and prime 

construction contractors so they can gather best practices and 

disseminate the knowledge to the Regiment. Some officers in 

the Engineer Regiment must become warranted contracting 

officers to give ourselves a self-help capability to advise 

maneuver commanders on contract expectations and to more 

aggressively pursue contracting actions. This seems like a 

tall order, but it is already happening in the combat zones of 

Afghanistan and Iraq in a variety of assignments. We simply 

need to document our combat successes and failures and go 

with what works.

Lieutenant Colonel Tyron is the Deputy Commander, 

20th Engineer Brigade (Combat) (Airborne). His previous 

assignments include Chief of Current Operations, XVIII 

Airborne Corps; Deputy Garrison Commander for Transformation, Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Deputy Commander, 

Afghanistan Engineer District, USACE; and Deputy Commander, St. Louis Engineer District, USACE.

Contributors

Lieutenant Colonel Greg Kniesler, Commander, 673d 

Construction Management Section, attached to the 20th 

Engineer Brigade. In civilian life, he is the director of facilities 

engineering at Mount St. Mary’s University, Maryland.

Lieutenant Colonel Paul Huszar, Operations and Training 

Officer, 20th Engineer Brigade (Combat)(Airborne). He 

has previously served as Executive Officer, Operations and 

Training Officer, and Deputy District Engineer for Military 

Programs in the USACE Sacramento District.

■

■

(“Theater Construction,” continued from page 53)
58 Engineer January-March 2008

Training a unit can be difficult even in a peaceful 

stateside setting. As the governments of Afghanistan 

and Iraq are stood up, however, our Soldiers are being 

tasked to train foreign soldiers in war zones. This presents 

special problems that need ingenious solutions. Issues such 

as culture and language are quickly apparent and must be 

dealt with. Other issues, such as leadership and equipment 

shortages, are not so easily managed. To combat these 

problems in Afghanistan, the United States Army has been 

sending Army National Guard Soldiers to act as “embedded 

team trainers” (ETT) for the Afghan National Army (ANA). 

While these two-Soldier teams are primarily trainers, they 

also serve as advisors and liaisons for combat operations. 

These teams are supposed to be the link between coalition 

troops and the ANA, enabling the Afghans to take more 

responsibility for their own defense. 

Issues

During the past year, two engineers from the Missouri 

Army National Guard (MOARNG) were engaged in 

training the engineers of the ANA’s 1st Brigade, 205th 

Corps. Located in the volatile southern region of Kandahar, 

the Afghan soldiers had been used as either infantry troops or 

laborers for coalition projects, despite their engineer training. 

The job of the MOARNG engineers was to reverse this 

trend.

 Combat itself was the major training hindrance. The spring 

offensive of the Taliban began in March 2006. To counter 

this, coalition forces began their own series of offensives. 

The conventional wisdom was to put an “Afghan face” on 

the operations but, unfortunately, the Afghan infantry units 

were farmed out to United States Army Special Forces units. 

Therefore, the bulk of the offensive infantry missions fell 

to the ANA’s combat support soldiers—the headquarters, 

engineer, and artillery units. The official manpower and 

equipment of the ANA units would have made them wellsuited to support both combat and construction operations. 

However, just as in any organization (much less a developing 

army like the ANA), the reality does not necessarily equate to 

the ideal on paper.

Leadership was another problem. Afghans still have a 

“warlord” mentality, which means that subordinate leaders 

were hesitant to do anything that the company commander 

did not expressly order. This and other issues affected the 

By Major James X. Francis

Training in the Fight:

Experiences in Afghanistan
January-March 2008 Engineer 59

leadership of the junior officers. Part of the 

complication was due to the Afghan culture. 

Another part was the fact that different 

segments of the ANA were taught according 

to different philosophies. The French were 

in charge of teaching the officers, while the 

British and Americans were responsible for 

training the enlisted soldiers. This caused a 

difference in approach to leadership within

the ANA. 

 Solutions

The first major issue to solve was the 

misuse of the engineers. Engineers 

are unique in that they can have an 

impact on both combat and reconstruction 

efforts. The more the local leaders and villages 

could see their government working for the 

good of Afghanistan, the more local support 

there would be for the government. With the 

engineers leading reconstruction efforts, the 

government could be seen as a beneficial force 

rather than just another warlord. Unfortunately, 

the ANA and coalition leaders were focused on 

the kinetic effort and ignored the nonkinetic 

fight. Due to ongoing operations, the ETTs 

performed their ANA training while in a 

combat environment.

After four months of combat operations 

and with little or no training possible, word 

was received that the 1st Reconstruction Task 

Force (Australian) was asking for Afghan 

support in the province of Uruzgan. The ETTs 

pushed hard to deploy with the ANA soldiers 

for two major reasons. First, that would pull 

the engineers out of the reach of the local corps 

commander, who repeatedly committed them to infantry 

combat operations. Second, in exchange for supporting the 

reconstruction efforts, the Afghan engineers would receive 

training assistance and support from the Australians, which 

would establish a good symbiotic relationship. 

The Australians put forth a training program and used their 

resources to teach the ANA soldiers skills such as carpentry 

and masonry, as well as selected combat skills. These skills 

were put to the test since the Afghans would go with the task 

force and assist in construction or help provide security. The 

results were so positive that remote village elders approached 

the ANA soldiers, promising security for coalition forces if the 

ANA would assist their villages. The International Security 

Assistance Force (ISAF) Southern Regional Command in 

Afghanistan cited the effort as a model of coalition and Afghan 

troops working together. A steady supply of positive reports 

for both the American and Afghan leadership maintained the 

mission and maintained distance from the Afghan command.

The first missions included security and checkpoints, as the 

two militaries learned each other’s strengths. As confidence 

in the ANA soldiers’ abilities grew, the missions branched 

out to minor carpentry tasks under Australian supervision. 

Eventually, the ANA soldiers were given missions under their 

own supervision as part of the reconstruction projects. At all 

times, the Australians kept the American advisors as part of 

the planning process, fostering a true coalition effort. 

Partly due to the culture, partly due to their training, 

progress among the officer leadership abilities was limited. 

On the other hand, the noncommissioned officers (NCOs) 

developed quite well and earned the respect of their men by 

their actions and abilities. The follow-on American advisors 

were briefed and expected to focus on the officer training 

portion. 

Because of the poor supply system, replacements for 

broken equipment were difficult to get through the ANA 

system. The Australians were excellent about helping out and 

ANA engineers erect solar-powered lamp posts.
60 Engineer January-March 2008

bought tools for the trainees. While using this “backdoor” 

technique, the ETTs continually pressed the ANA officers 

and NCOs to push paperwork through the Afghan system to 

expose where the problem lay. 

Results

Overall, the solutions to the problems enabled 

successful training and missions. The year 

highlighted the ANA engineers’ construction—as 

well as combat—abilities and their success at reaching out to 

the local communities. The cooperation of the Reconstruction 

Task Force and the ANA was beneficial to both sides and 

showed the advantages of true partnership. More successes 

of this nature in both Iraq and Afghanistan will allow 

national forces in both places to take more control of their 

own defenses and require fewer rotations for American and 

coalition troops. 

Major Francis is the engineer officer for the 110th Combat 

Support Brigade, Missouri Army National Guard. His

past assignments include engineer trainer in Afghanistan; 

commander of the 235th Utilities Detachment, Missouri Army 

National Guard; and staff engineer section operations officer 

for 1st Corps at Fort Lewis, Washington. He holds a master’s 

in history from Southeast Missouri State University.

Australian, American, and Afghani engineers repair a mosque.
January-March 2008 Engineer 61

I recently completed a deployment to Iraq as the Division 

G7 and the Division Engineer for the 25th Infantry 

Division, which served as the Multinational Division–

North (MND–N) headquarters at Contingency Operating 

Base (COB) Speicher and covered an area equivalent to the 

size of Pennsylvania. The division converted to the modular 

structure and deployed after a mission rehearsal exercise 

and, during the tour, it commanded and controlled four to six 

modular brigade combat teams (BCTs). From my perspective, 

I think the modular engineer force structure is about right. I 

offer the following observations based on my 15 months in 

Iraq.

Staff Organization

The engineer expertise on the division staff in the 

modular structure resides in the two tactical command 

posts (TACs), the division operations center, and the 

Division Engineer cell. By the modified table of organization 

and equipment (MTOE), engineers support other sections 

within the headquarters and are not a staff section such as 

the G1 or G4. We did not operate this way. The Division 

Engineer section became the G7 Reconstruction, not the 

Information Operations (IO) section. The IO section was part 

of G3. The MTOE engineers assigned throughout the division 

headquarters worked within the G7. The exception was the 

engineer planner, who remained a member of the G5. 

The G7 included the engineers, the traditional G9 section, 

and several civil affairs personnel. The figure on page 

62 depicts the areas of G7 responsibility. The G7 section 

coordinated reconstruction efforts at the division level, as 

well as the traditional engineer and civil-military operations 

functions. Placing all of the engineer personnel within the 

G7 allowed the engineer section to battle-track, coordinate 

engineer support, provide resources to the BCTs, and 

execute nonstandard missions, as assigned. The G7 provided 

personnel to the division operations center and executed the 

traditional roles of maintaining situational awareness of the 

current fight, providing engineer input for the staff battle 

drills, and briefing the commander. The G7 also coordinated 

with the assigned engineer brigade headquarters and corps for 

additional engineer capability, as required for the mission or 

as requested by the BCTs. 

Resourcing in Iraq is requirements-based. Many of 

the resources required by engineers were construction 

materials, particularly barriers. These were justified through 

the Division Acquisition Review Board (DARB) or the 

Joint Acquisition Review Board (JARB), depending on 

the monetary thresholds. The engineers provide input 

for the division-level approval, or process the requests 

going to corps for their action. In addition to the material 

requests, an engineer reviewed all construction requests 

and conducted a work classification to ensure compliance 

with statutory construction limits. Within Iraq, the Logistics 

Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) is a source of base 

camp support. As part of our division-level review process, 

the Division Engineer validates all LOGCAP requests over 

$100,000. 

The G7 in MND–N was responsible for oil and electrical 

infrastructure. This nonstandard mission entailed tracking 

the progress of improving crude oil exports, distribution 

of the refined product, and production and distribution of 

electricity. The MND–N area included one of the largest 

refineries and power plants in Iraq, as well as the Kirkuk oil 

fields. The G7 staff section provided our general officers and 

higher headquarters with accurate and timely oil and power 

information. This information assisted leaders at all levels in 

their engagements with Iraqi officials, resulting in improved 

production, security, and reliability over the course of our 

deployment. 

The G7 also supervised the Commander’s Emergency 

Response Program (CERP), another nonstandard mission. 

This involved tracking all BCT projects, facilitating the 

approval of projects over $100,000, funding all projects in 

conjunction with the G8 CERP manager, and maintaining the 

Iraq Reconstruction Management System (IRMS) database. 

This was no small task, because the division executed more 

than 3,000 projects in one fiscal year. Civil affairs personnel 

augmented the engineers in order to accomplish these 

nonstandard missions.

The Division Engineer section accomplished all of these 

tasks, because all the engineer personnel on the division 

staff worked for the Division Engineer in G7. If personnel 

work according to their MTOE assignments, the engineer 

contribution to the division commander and staff is limited 

to battle tracking and coordination for engineer support. The 

consolidation of engineer personnel enabled the sourcing and 

execution of the nonstandard task.

By Colonel Jeffrey R. Eckstein

Modular Engineer Structure

in Divisions

Modular Engineer Structure

in Divisions
62 Engineer January-March 2008

Multiple vs. Consolidated Command Posts

The modular MTOE for the division does provide 

adequate engineer staffing, but the organization 

supports three separate command posts, which are

critical for a mobile fight. In Iraq, we did not need the 

capability to conduct mobile operations, so we formed one 

staff from the three command posts and formed new cells 

as required by the mission in Iraq. Over the course of 15 

months, two cells did form that operated separately from the 

division headquarters. Although referred to as TACs, these 

cells supported leader engagements rather than coordination 

of tactical operations. Additionally, the division formed the 

Iraqi Security Force (ISF) cell, the improvised explosive 

device (IED) defeat cell, the Project Coordination Center 

(executed CERP), and the reconciliation cell. With the 

consolidation of all engineer personnel in one staff section, 

we supported all of these cells with appropriate coordination, 

as well as controlling the Project Coordination Center. The 

G3 controlled the other cells. 

Manning

My assessment is that the MTOE for personnel 

provides adequate expertise and leadership to 

execute engineer planning, integration, and 

support at the division and brigade levels. Discussions are 

already underway to modify the organization at division and 

BCT levels. Unfortunately, none of the BCTs nor the division 

staff was manned according to their MTOEs. Non-career 

course graduates often filled the captain positions and career 

course graduate captains filled the major positions. Only one 

Stryker BCT had the required major, one of one. Engineer 

officers were in great demand as liaison officers (LNOs) and 

military transition team (MiTT) members and for fulfilling 

branch qualifications in branch-immaterial positions (brigade 

special troops battalion [BSTB] or special troops battalion 

[STB] executive officer [XO]/operations officer [S3]). The 

same situation occurred with captains, although not to the 

extent of the majors. Many of the problems we experienced 

with communication and coordination would be alleviated 

by having more senior personnel on the staff. It is critical 

that the brigade and division staff positions are filled at the 

appropriate grade, not just with an engineer. I recommend 

consolidation of the division engineer personnel into one 

section, the G7, but retain the current MTOE authorizations. 

At the BCT level, I am hesitant to suggest a different force 

structure for the officers, but I would add a construction-type 

noncommissioned officer (NCO).

Battalion Headquarters in a BCT

Most engineer and maneuver commands commented 

on how they needed more engineers and how they 

missed having the attached engineer battalion 

in the BCT. With a properly manned brigade staff, the 

engineer battalion headquarters is not required to support 

the modular BCT. An engineer battalion headquarters is 

appropriate because engineer elements assigned to the BCT 

increase based on the assigned mission set. What is not 

required for the one or two organic engineer companies is 

an engineer headquarters element. A BSTB headquarters 

provides the required command and control. The knowledge 

and experience of an engineer battalion commander within a 

BCT is invaluable and is a tremendous advantage. But that 

capability is not worth the detachment or company that comes 

with the commander. A better solution is to place a highquality, potential battalion commander on the BCT staff as 

one of the assigned majors. At BCT level, there are either one 

or two engineer majors, depending on whether it is a Stryker, 

infantry, or heavy BCT. I suggest providing two engineer 

majors on the MTOE, regardless of the type of BCT.

Engineer Capability in a BCT

Another common complaint with the new modular 

structure is the lack of engineer capability. In Iraq, I 

believe our problems are not a result of modularity. 
January-March 2008 Engineer 63

Engineers are in high demand in counterinsurgency operations. Because a BCT requires additional engineers to 

support missions, the BCT must wait, share, or simply do

without the requested engineer capability. Providing additional organic capability to the BCT is not a viable solution. 

We must remain flexible and agile to match the engineer 

capability to the BCT requirements at the correct time. As 

BCT missions require additional forces, the BCT receives 

engineer forces with the appropriate command or control 

relationship. The only capability I would suggest is additional 

horizontal capability within the engineer company. 

Engineer Brigade Headquarters

The one required force structure change is the 

engineer brigade headquarters at division level, 

and there are many ways to provide this command 

and control headquarters. I suggest an arrangement similar 

to that of the sustainment brigades. Each division has a 

habitual relationship with an engineer brigade. The current 

four engineer brigades on active duty are not enough. 

Every division in Iraq, except the surge infantry division, 

has had at least one engineer brigade or group assigned 

to it to support operations. That fact should validate the 

requirement. Similar to the sustainment brigades, these 

engineer brigades do not require organic units. The division’s 

mission dictates the allocation of additional engineers. With 

the already lean organic engineer capability of the BCT, 

divisions will require additional engineer units for nearly 

every assigned mission. These modular brigades accept 

the additional engineer capability required to support 

operations. The modular engineer brigade is not integral to 

the division headquarters and will remain able to command 

and control engineer operations across the division area of 

operation. Typically, divisional engineer brigades provided 

their assigned engineer battalions to the BCTs and usually 

requested engineer groups as additional engineer battalions 

supported the division. Previously, we had an engineer 

command and control headquarters at division level, but we 

requested one more headquarters. What we really need is 

more company- and battalion-level capability; one engineer 

brigade headquarters per division is adequate.

Summary

I

believe the modular concept and capability within the 

division and BCT is about right if properly manned. It 

is critical to have 100 percent manning on division and 

BCT staffs with the appropriate grade personnel. At division 

level, consolidate the engineers by MTOE into one section, 

nominally the G7. Provide some additional horizontal 

capability within the organic BCT engineer company. I 

would not attempt to provide the organic engineer battalion 

headquarters to a BCT. I would increase the number of 

engineer brigades in the structure to match the number of 

divisions and would continue with efforts to increase the 

engineer force structure. My experience in Iraq reinforces 

that we do not have enough engineers in the force structure; 

Engineer Soldiers deploying every other year deserve the 

additional force structure. The modular construct is valid 

and does not require major reworking or debate within the 

Regiment. We should first focus on bringing back engineer 

capability at the company and battalion levels. 

Colonel Eckstein is the Chief of Staff, 25th Infantry 

Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. He recently served 

in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Previous 

assignments include Division Engineer and G7 for the 25th 

Infantry Division; Commander, 84th Engineer Battalion; and 

S3, 36th Engineer Group. He is a registered professional 

engineer in Virginia and Florida and holds a master’s in civil 

engineering from the University of Washington.

Dedication

The following members of the Engineer Regiment have been lost in the War on Terrorism since the last issue of Engineer.

We dedicate this issue to them.

Burress, Specialist Richard B. 1st Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 3d Infantry Division Fort Stewart, Georgia

Hill, Sergeant Shawn F. 178th Engineer Battalion, 218th Infantry Brigade Rock Hill, South Carolina

Osmolski, Sergeant John C. 2d Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 2d Brigade Combat Team Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Skelton, Sergeant Bradley J. 1138th Engineer Company, 35th Engineer Brigade Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

Straughter, Specialist Matthew F. 1138th Engineer Company, 35th Enginer Brigade Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri
64 Engineer January-March 2008

On 15 August 1946, the 697th Petroleum Distribution 

Company was reactivated and the unit then

bounced around the Philippine-Ryukyus Command 

in the western Pacific until 26 May 1949, when it was again 

deactivated. No records of its activities for that time have 

been found. 

During the Korean War, the 83d, 388th, and 700th Engineer 

Pipeline Companies lent their efforts to the fight. Their 

assignments were familiar—to build and maintain pipelines, 

tank farms, and distribution facilities.

On 15 November 1954, the 697th again was stood up, 

designated the 697th Engineer Company (Pipeline), assigned 

to the 5th Army, and stationed at Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri, where it spent about three years. On 14 February 

1957, it moved to Fort Polk, Louisiana, where it participated 

in Operation Sledgehammer from 24 April to 24 May 1957. 

That exercise was probably the most important assignment 

United States Army pipeline companies had during the 1950s 

and early 1960s. Attached to the 1st Armored Division, the 

697th again met the challenge of delivering fuel to combat 

forces in the field, but this time with a new system for 

pipeline fuel delivery. The fast deployment of pipeline, quick 

fuel storage devices, and concealment were emphasized. 

This would be the most important operation involving the 

697th until the unit deployed to Thailand in 1965. The 697th 

received a meritorious unit commendation for its efforts 

during Operation Sledgehammer. 

With the new system, the pipeline was no longer a rigid steel 

pipe but a flexible hose similar to a fire hose. Hundreds of feet 

of hose were folded up tightly in large crates and loaded onto 

a truck. In a deployment process called “flaking,” the loose 

end of the hose was fastened temporarily to the ground so 

when the truck pulled away, the hose rapidly unwound from 

the crate. When one crate of hose was strung out, a coupling 

crew connected the end to the hose in the next full crate and 

the truck would drive off again, dispensing the hose out the 

back as it went. The hose was meant as a temporary pipeline 

to deliver fuel to the front lines more quickly than, but just as 

dependably as, the steel pipelines. When not in use, the hose 

could be repacked and moved to another location. Terrain was 

easier to navigate with the new system. At streams, the hose 

was simply strung along the sides of a bridge. Sometimes a 

log set across the stream was enough to support the hose. In 

open territory, the hose was laid along the road grade. 

The accompanying pump stations, tank farms and 

manifolds, and fuel-dispensing racks were also much simpler 

with this system. The pump stations along the line used 

marine-style engines and pumps, which were smaller and 

simpler to operate but spaced closer together. The flexible 

hose was laid out and hooked up to one side of the pump. The 

next section of line was hooked up to the other side of the 

pump, and then the truck would 

drive away, flaking as fast as 

practicable. 

The tank farms were a series of 

10,000-gallon blister bags that lay 

flat on the ground when empty but 

inflated when filled with liquids. 

The blister bags shortened the 

time needed to install a storage 

unit. First, the ground was leveled 

and all sharp objects removed, 

usually by men with rakes. Then 

the blister bags were pulled from 

their crates and laid out flat on 

the ground and connected to the 

manifold, which controlled the 

flow of fluids to and from the 

blister bags. 

By Mr. Thomas J. Petty

The system using inflatable blister bags was developed in the 1950s and was still 

in use during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Fueling the Front lines:

Army Pipeline Units - Part II

Past in Review

This is the second of a two-part history of the Army pipeline units. The first part appeared in the October-December 

2007 issue of Engineer and covered the beginning of the military pipeline system and units, from shortly before World War 

II through 1945.
January-March 2008 Engineer 65

The dispensing racks were simplified also. During 

Operation Sledgehammer, the 697th completed a filling station 

for tanker trucks, which in turn was used to fill canisters at 

points set up along the line. Vehicle fill points could also be 

set up there, or at any other point, by tapping into the pipeline. 

Since the 697th was working with the 1st Armored Division, a 

tank refueling station was also constructed. Another segment 

of the operation involved building a tank farm with a 10,000-

barrel steel storage tank and two smaller tanks, including the 

conventional pump station and manifolds. Three other tank 

farms using blister bags and flexible pipeline were also built. 

To add to this mix, it was decided to try camouflaging the 

different systems and the company vehicles and men. 

This system was also deployed for the current war in Iraq. 

It was critical that the main pipeline be built into Iraq as 

quickly as possible, so a flexible hose was used to deliver fuel 

to a tank farm a few miles from the main line. Although this 

system was more labor intensive and was unable to deliver 

the same volume of fuel as a regular coupled pipeline, it kept 

the tank farm adequately supplied until a regular coupled 

pipeline could be installed.

After the mid-1950s, there were only three pipeline 

companies in the Regular Army:

The 697th Engineer Company (Pipeline) was based at 

Fort Leonard Wood from December 1954 to February

1957; Fort Polk from February 1957 to April 1959;

Fort Hood, Texas, from April 1959 to January 1962;

and Fort Wolters, Texas, from January 1962 until it

deployed to Thailand in July 1965. It was deactivated in

Thailand in August 1969. 

The 515th Engineer Company (Pipeline) was at Fort

Belvoir, Virginia, before being attached to the 5th Engineer

Battalion at Fort Leonard Wood. It went on to participate

in the first Gulf War and then became a Missouri National

■

■

Guard pipeline unit until it was deactivated in 1995. It

has recently been reactivated but as an engineer

construction company. 

The 543d Engineer Company (Pipeline) was stationed in

 France and was deactivated there in 1970. 

Since the early 1990s, the Regular Army 

has not had a pipeline company. 

The 515th developed a reputation for its 

ability to complete projects in an exemplary 

manner while at Fort Leonard Wood. The 

543d operated, maintained, and oversaw 

petroleum distribution in five distribution 

districts in France and parts of Germany. 

The 697th worked in a “behind the lines” 

environment in Thailand for four years 

during the Vietnam War and completed 

innumerable projects on both company- and 

platoon-level missions in Thailand, Vietnam, 

and Korea. This part of the article will again 

focus on the 697th.

During the 1950s and 1960s, career 

pipeline noncommissioned officers (NCOs) 

rotated among the three companies and soon 

became a “pipeline family.” This made for 

■

Soldiers from a pipeline company repair matting that buckled in the 

extreme desert heat.

Pipeline engineers attach redesigned couplings that 

made laying pipelines much easier.
66 Engineer January-March 2008

a close-knit operation and support system. According to the 

career NCOs, true pipeline Soldiers need to have served in all 

three companies. The Soldiers were so close that officers were 

considered of no consequence unless they were affiliated with 

pipeline engineering in some form. The first assignment for 

the 697th Engineer Company (Pipeline) when it arrived in 

Thailand in 1965 was to build a base camp for itself and the 

9th Logistics Command, which was head of all engineering 

activities in Thailand. The base camp, built at the outskirts of 

the inland city of Korat, was named Camp USARTHAI—short 

for “United States Army Thailand.” To the chagrin of most 

of the men there, later camps were given more impressive 

names, such as Camp Lightning or Camp Essayons. 

The first task for the 697th was to build shelters (known as 

hooches) for Camp USARTHAI and other camps being set up 

at the time. The 2d Platoon was sent to the Sattihip Cantonment 

Area to build storage tanks and ship-unloading facilities at the 

new deepwater port there. The company also evaluated the 

roads leading to the major camps and air bases in the area and 

found that they were in dire need of improvement. For the 

first few months in 1965, the 697th built bases, scouted roads, 

constructed a helicopter pad and then turned it into a tennis 

and basketball court, and completed other small construction 

jobs. In the spring of 1966, the engineers were called on to 

start a major project: build six 10,000-barrel storage tanks at 

the Royal Thai Air Force Base (Camp Friendship) at Korat. 

It was a job for the entire company and the first of a series 

of assignments to challenge the company’s mettle. The tank 

farm was already large by the usual standards, but the air base 

was expanding rapidly to keep pace with the war in Vietnam. 

The 561st Engineer Battalion cleared the jungle and set the 

level grade. Concrete was used for the tank foundations and 

as one foundation was set and ready, another was being built. 

The tanks were put up one after another as the foundations 

were finished. As many as three tanks were in various stages 

of construction at one time. In three months, despite technical 

problems with the materials, the tanks were completed and 

water-tested on schedule. 

Building the six tanks was the last company-sized project 

the 697th performed until July1969, when all the platoons 

came together at the Sattihip Cantonment Area to work on a 

new installation—Camp Samae San. The platoons completed 

many widely scattered projects; the main assignments 

included the following:

In mid-1966, 2d Platoon went to Vietnam to build a

52.6-mile pipeline from Anke to Quin Yon. 

In October 1966, 1st and 3d Platoons built a tank farm at

the Royal Thai Air Force Base at Nakon Phanom,

Thailand.

In January 1967, 2d Platoon returned from Vietnam

and many of its men rotated home, to be replaced with

new personnel. Along with 1st Platoon, they built the

most elaborate movie theater in Thailand. Although

a 697th electrician pointed out a wiring problem during

construction, no action was taken. The theater almost

burned down the same night it was dedicated.

In March 1967, 1st Platoon returned from Nakon Phanom 

and joined 2d Platoon at Camp USARTHAI to build the

movie theater. Road construction and repair to the adjoining air base were also on the hot list. Remaining at the

Nakon Phanom Royal Thai Air Force Base, 3d Platoon

performed an impressive list of tasks, including construction of three 10,000-barrel storage tanks at the

farm, two 10,000-barrel storage tanks at the water

purification plant, a pump station at the reservoir, and

several miles of 8-inch pipeline to the base water 

purification plant to the south, a 4-inch water pipeline to

■

■

■

■

A crew positions 

the pipe before 

installing a gate 

valve.
January-March 2008 Engineer 67

the tank farm from the water plant, and the start of the

tank farm manifold system. 

In September 1967, the platoons changed places and

2d Platoon went to Nakon Phanom Royal Thai Air 

Force Base to build two more 10,000-barrel fuel storage

tanks in the tank farm and complete the tank farm

manifold. Meanwhile, 3d Platoon went back to Camp

USARTHAI for much-needed equipment repair and to

continue area construction projects, and 1st Platoon

convoyed to the Sattihip Cantonment Area to build two

10,000-barrel storage tanks for the water system and

begin installing water lines to the new camp. This

was the start of a two-year project building Camp

Samae San, which ended up with the entire company present and working on it in July 1969.

For the four years that the 697th was in Thailand, the

motor pool personnel had worked hard under less-thanperfect conditions. The mechanics did an outstanding 

job of supporting the line platoons, and never was there a

breakdown or need for emergency road service on any of 

the company’s vehicles. 

In March 1968, the 697th was alerted that it would be

assigned to a project in Korea. All the company’s

experienced Soldiers with more than 90 days to rotation

were put into 3d Platoon to bring it up to full strength,

except for a small contingent of experienced Soldiers left

behind in 1st Platoon. This platoon would be based

in Camp USARTHAI to perform tank farm maintenance 

throughout Thailand for the following year. 

After losing most of its experienced Soldiers to

3d Platoon, 2d Platoon was sent to the Sattihip Cantonment Area in March 1968 to

install more water lines.

Building the Sattihip Cantonment 

Area was probably the 697th’s largest 

and most time-consuming project. 

Delta Company, 538th Engineer 

Battalion, arrived at the site in May 

1967 and built hooches and a water 

pipeline from nearby Utapoe Air 

Base. The 697th sent 1st Platoon 

there in September 1967 to build two 

10,000-barrel storage tanks for the 

water system. The tanks were high on 

the side of a very large hill and would 

supply adequate pressure to the camp 

below, acting as a water tower. For 

two years the 697th worked, often in 

deplorable conditions, to complete 

the camp water and sewer systems. 

While 2d and 3d Platoons worked 

at Camp Samae San, 1st Platoon had 

been doing repair work at the major 

air base tank farms and petroleum, oil, 

■

■

■

■

and lubrication (POL) facilities around Thailand for almost 

a year. From February to July 1969, 1st Platoon sealed and 

tested four 10,000-barrel tanks and refurbished the manifold 

system in the tank farm at Udorn Royal Thai Air Force 

Base. The platoon installed 1,200 feet of welded steel pipe 

and another 2,500 feet of coupled pipe. For their hard work 

and ability to do the job without shutting down the base 

tank farm, the platoon was awarded a unit commendation 

by United States Air Force officials, who do not lightly give 

out awards to Army units. At the end of this assignment,

1st Platoon also went to the Sattihip Cantonment Area. 

In August 1969, the 697th Engineer Company (Pipeline) 

was deactivated. The following quote is from an e-mail by 

Captain Joe Wagda, the last company commander:

By the way, at the time, we were told that the 

697th was the first unit in the Vietnam theater to be 

deactivated, so we were to be the model for other 

units that followed. It was amazing to go through 

the deactivation process while concurrently working 

our projects right until the deactivation date when 

we transferred responsibilities over to the 538th. 

Quite a performance!

Quite a performance indeed!

But this is not the end of the pipeline story. The wars in 

Iraq and Afghanistan marked another time and another need 

for fuel to be delivered to the front lines. Some of the needs of 

World War II are the same in the new conflicts. The Abrams 

M1 tank is considered to be one of the world’s best, but it 

guzzles fuel. According to an article in the July-September 

2003 issue of Engineer, “The pipeline was essential, as one of 

the Combined Forces Land Component Command’s prestart 

At crossing sites, the pipeline is buried deep enough that the weight of passing 

vehicles won’t affect it.
68 Engineer January-March 2008

conditions for the war with Iraq was the completion of the 

[inland petroleum distribution system] to Breach Point West 

on the Kuwait-Iraq border.”1 Fuel delivery was now seen as 

a prerequisite rather than a secondary consideration of war. 

What was learned in previous wars was now applied once 

again. Long expansions of the pipeline, the location of pump 

stations, staggered workloads, and the relocation of the 

pipeline unit’s headquarters at intervals along the route were 

still the same. Packaging, advances in delivering materials, 

and the use of skid loaders and other labor-saving machines 

increased productivity tremendously. 

The most important mechanical improvements in the 

pipeline system were the use of aluminum to make the 

pipeline tubes lighter and easier to handle and the redesign of 

the Victaulic coupler. The coupler is now hinged and pressed 

over the pipe tube with a special tool and then “pinned” into 

place rather than bolted. This improvement saves time during 

both installation and repair.

The use of several companies to construct and test the 

lines was incorporated to a higher degree than before. 

Regular combat engineer companies built the pipeline while 

Reserve pipeline companies did the follow-up line testing, 

repair, and pump station construction. Several hundred 

miles of pipeline were constructed and delivered enormous 

amounts of fuel to frontline vehicles. The 62d Engineer 

Battalion (Combat)(Heavy), 226th Engineer Company 

(Combat)(Heavy), and the 808th Engineer Company (Pipeline) 

(a United States Army Reserve unit) helped complete this 

project. Before the Abrams M1 tanks even rolled, the pipeline 

was planned, laid out, and operating right up to the border of 

Iraq. This may very well be the face of pipeline construction 

in the future, with Active Army engineer units doing the bulk 

of the work and specialized Army Reserve and National 

Guard pipeline units lending their expertise where needed.

Essayons! Pipeline rules!

Mr. Petty was a farm boy from Iowa when he enlisted 

in the Army in 1966. He spent his Army career in pipeline 

companies. After leaving the Army, he graduated magna 

cum laude from a community college that offered a farm 

equipment mechanic’s course. He has been a mechanic for 

34 years and is still very interested in the pipeline experience. 

For more information about pipeline unit history, contact him 

at <tom697th@gmail.com>.

Endnote

1

 Captain Anthony De Simone and Major Normand 

Gauthier, “The Inland Petroleum Distribution System 

in Kuwait and Iraq,” Engineer, July-September 2003,

pp. 13-18.

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 doublespaced pages). Shorter after-action-type 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 website 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 non-government 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 <leon.engineer@conus.

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, 464 MANSCEN 

Loop, Suite 2661, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8926.

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.

The Engineer Writer’s Guide
The Army has established a Capability Integration 

Team (CIT) to specifically assist active and reserve 

deploying units with improvised explosive device defeat (IEDD) training and materiel capabilities integration. 

The CIT was established as a result of gaps identified in the 

Army IEDD training strategy published in March 2007. The 

CIT serves all units as a point of contact for IEDD questions and issues. In June 2007, the Army Assistant Chief of 

Staff, Operations and Plans, approved and funded six CIT 

locations: Fort Lewis, Washington; Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort 

Hood, Texas; Camp Shelby, Mississippi; Fort Bragg, North 

Carolina; and Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Teams at each 

location are capable of traveling to other nearby Army unit 

locations or other Service bases to assist units with their 

IEDD requirements. Priorities of work are driven by the 

Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) process and the 

deployment and training priorities established by the U.S. 

Central Command and the U.S. Army Forces Command. 

For further information regarding the CIT, contact <leon.

cdidieddicdt@conus.army.mil>.

By Mr. John Moore

The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Improvised Explosive Device Defeat (IEDD) Integrated Capabilities Development Team (ICDT) has established an IEDD training website as a result of an initiative 

contained in the Fiscal Year 2007 IEDD Training Strategy. 

The site was established in close coordination with personnel responsible for operating the Center for Army Lessons 

Learned, the Battle Command Knowledge System, and the 

U.S. Joint Forces Command Knowledge and Information 

Fusion Exchange (KnIFE) sites. The IEDD training website 

encompasses the self-development, operational, and institutional training domains. Additionally, it provides training 

support products to remote locations to assist individuals 

with their current jobs and prepare them for future assignments with increased responsibility. The site further serves 

as a portal for access to other Army IEDD training resources that have been developed by various Army proponents. 

The uniform resource locator (URL) for the IEDD training 

website is <https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/477426>. 

An Army Knowledge Online (AKO) account is required to

access the site.

Mr. Moore is the Senior Training Development Analyst, 

TRADOC Improvised Explosive Device Defeat (IEDD) Integrated Capabilities Development Team (ICDT), Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

January-March 2008 Engineer 69

Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 

Capability Integration Team

Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 

Training Website