COMMANDANT

BG Gregg F. Martin

563-6192

<gregg.martin@us.army.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL Robert A. Tipton	 	 	 	 	

563-8080

<robert.tipton@us.army.mil>

REGIMENTAL CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER

CW5 Robert K. Lamphear

563-4088

<robert.lamphear@us.army.mil>

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR

CSM Robert J. Wells

563-8060

<bobby.wells@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–USAR

COL Jose E. Cepeda	 	 	 	 	

563-8045

<jose.cepeda.deaner@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–ARNG

LTC Steven K. Knutzen	 	 	 	 	

563-8046

<steven.knutzen@us.army.mil>

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC Scott C. Johnson

563-7116

<scott.johnson@us.army.mil>

COMMANDER, 1st ENGINEER BRIGADE

COL Tommy R. Mize	 	 	 	

596-0224, DSN 581-0224

<tommy.mize@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT

COL Jerry C. 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 David Theisen	 	 	 	 	

563-8142

<david-theisen@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

Mr. Jeffery L. Beacham

563-0003

<jeffery.beacham@us.army.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT ORGANIZATION

LTC Leonard E. Wells

563-6282

<leonard.wells@us.army.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT MATERIEL

LTC Steven T. Wall

563-5055

<steven.wall@us.army.mil>

Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is prepared 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:

0815601

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

Robert J. Wells

04 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major

Clinton J. Pearson

05 Regimental Change of Responsibility

23 The Engineer Writer’s Guide

26 Engineer Regimental Remembrance

Ceremony

27 Regimental Awards

72 Book Reviews – “The World War II

Black Regiment That Built the Alaska

Military Highway: A Photographic

History” and “Mud: A Military History”

Reviewed by Ms. Susan Stevens

74 Dedication

76 Engineer Update

77 Leadership Development

Front Cover: Designed by Jennifer Morgan

Back Cover: 2008 Best Sapper Competition

MANAGING EDITOR

Shirley Bridges

EDITOR

Rick Brunk

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

Cheryl Green

Susan Stevens

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Jennifer Morgan

COMMANDANT

Brigadier General

Gregg F. Martin

FEATURES

06 State of the Regiment – Going from Good to Great

By Ms. Shirley A. Bridges

10 Building the Bench 

By Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp

11 ENFORCE 2008 – Building Great Engineers

By Brigadier General Gregg F. Martin

14 Turning the Building Great Engineers (BGE) Flywheel! 

By Captain William E. Mohr, Colonel Jerry C. Meyer, Colonel Robert A.

Tipton, Colonel William H. Haight, Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey A. Anderson, 

Mr. Steve H. Tupper, and Brigadier General Gregg F. Martin 

20 Developing an Engineer Leader Technical Competency Strategy: 

Accessing, Developing, Retaining, and Employing Talent

By Colonel E. Casey Wardynski, Major David S. Lyle,

and Captain William E. Mohr

21 Harnessing the Technical Span of Control

By Major Jared L. Ware

24 The Army Profession, the Engineer Regiment, and the Character of 

Their Leaders

By Dr. Don M. Snider

28 Only the Innovative Need Apply—Brigade Special Troops Battalion

Command

By Lieutenant Colonel Scott C. Johnson

31 4th Annual Best Sapper Competition

By First Lieutenant James Butler

34 Combat Outpost Construction in Afghanistan’s Paktika Province

By Captain Nicholas O. Melin

38 ENFORCE 2008 Photo Essay

40 Field Force and Facility Engineer Training

By Major Erik B. Backus

43 Junior Officers in USACE

By Colonel Christopher W. Martin

46 The Sun Never Sets on the USAFEG

By Colonel Dwight W. Pearson and Major Curtis L. Decker

49 So You Want to Be a Company Commander?

By Major John N. Carey

54 Reorganizing the DPW in Iraq

By Lieutenant Colonel Gregory B. Kniesler

56 Engineer Doctrine Update

By Mr. Jeffery L. Beacham

61 Operation Market Garden – The Battle for Arnhem

By Captain Brodie K. Hoyer

67 Earning the President’s Hundred Tab

By Major William J. Miller

68 Earning the Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge

By Major William J. Miller

75 The Castle at Camp Bucca

By Sergeant Raymond Sieger

Volume 38 PB 5-08-2 Headquarters, Department of the Army April-June 2008

NGINEE

UNITED STATES ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

MANSCEN

DIRECTORATE OF TRAINING

PUBLICATIONS BRANCH

April-June 2008 Engineer 1
2 Engineer April-June 2008

By Brigadier General Gregg F. Martin

Commandant, United States Army Engineer School

Clear The Way 

Teammates: Greetings from Fort 

Leonard Wood, the home of our magnificent Army Engineer Regiment! 

While our Regiment is decisively engaged in 

simultaneous full-spectrum operations across 

the globe, we have embarked on a significant 

journey into the human dimension, which will 

have far-reaching, enduring, and strategic

effects on our Regiment and Army. Launching this journey was the principle focus of

ENFORCE 2008, which we recently held 

from 4-9 May in St. Louis and at Fort Leonard Wood. 

As in the past, the purpose of ENFORCE 

was to—

Build the future of our Regiment.

Enhance learning and professional development.

Promote fellowship and esprit de corps.

Celebrate our achievements, traditions, and history.

Connect senior leaders, junior leaders, alumni, and Family

into the regimental “circle of life.”

On top of all the learning and hard intellectual work, we

had a great time of celebration, fellowship, competition, and

remembrance. Highlights included— 

World-Class Speakers, who stretched our brains, challenged

our conventional thinking, and informed us. 

Interaction with our world-class Industry Partners, who

support and enable us with materiel and technology solutions

and support. 

Breakout Sessions with key leaders from around the world

who came back to inform and educate us on the Stability

Operations they are currently engaged in and responsible for.

Regimental Spirit Run, with plenty of pushups and flutter

kicks.

Best Sapper Competition and awards (see article, page 31). 

Commandant’s Reception and Mega-Mixer, which pulled

together senior leaders, junior leaders, alumni, and Family in

a wonderful social event.

Tours of the world-class Counter Explosive Hazards Center

and Military Construction (MILCON) Projects.

Chief of Engineers State of the Regiment Address (see article,

page 6).

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Prayer Breakfast in the World War II

chapel.

Remembrance Service, in honor of the

37 heroic fallen Sappers who made the

ultimate sacrifice since the last Roll Call a

year ago (see article, page 26).

Regimental Ball, a “Circle of Life” event,

at which we presented the Regimental

Awards for Excellence: Itschner Awards,

Sturgis Medals, Best Platoon Leader

Awards, and Van Autreve Award (see

article on page 27 for detailed recognition

of these Soldiers and units), as well as the 

Gold DeFleury Medal to LTG (Ret) Robert

Flowers, and the Essayons Award to his

wife Lynda.

Spouse Program, consisting of a diverse array of important,

interesting, and enjoyable events throughout the week.

Of special note was the Regimental Change of Responsibility 

between CSM Clint Pearson and CSM Robert Wells (see article, 

page 5). We thank CSM Pearson and Mollie for their four-plus years 

of dedicated service to our Regiment in this key leadership role. We 

wish them all the best as they are reassigned to Washington, DC, 

where they will continue to do important work for our Army. And 

we welcome CSM Wells and Ann—the perfect team to help lead our 

Regiment into the future and to the next level. 

Thanks to everyone who came to ENFORCE 2008 and participated, and to everyone who played a role in planning, supporting, 

orchestrating, and executing this outstanding and successful event. 

Please get the word out and take the message of Building Great

Engineers to the streets!!!

For those of you who could not attend, I ask you to read the 

forthcoming reports, get engaged in the Campaign Plan, and help 

us Build Great Engineers for full spectrum operations in an era of 

persistent conflict.

For all of you who are deployed around the world, performing full spectrum operations on behalf of our great nation—

THANK YOU! You are doing incredible work of tremendous importance and are making an enormous positive difference! Keep at 

it, keep the faith, stay safe and healthy, and know that you are in our 

thoughts and prayers. You have the complete and total support of the 

entire Regiment!

May the Good Lord bless each of you and your Families!

All the best!

ESSAYONS!!! Army Strong!!!

Mark your calendars now for ENFORCE 2009, the week of

19-25 April 2009, at our Regimental Home – Fort Leonard Wood!!!

■

■

■

■
April-June 2008 Engineer 3

Lead The Way 

By Command Sergeant Major Robert J. Wells

United States Army Engineer School

I

’d like to take this opportunity to thank all 

the great Soldiers, past and present, who 

have helped me get to where I am today. 

Working and fighting alongside our brothers 

in maneuver, fires, intel, and sustainment units 

has given me an appreciation of the challenges 

we face on today’s battlefield and emphasized 

the importance of the engineer role. 

My focus has always been on the mission, 

the Soldier, and the commander. As a 

noncommissioned officer (NCO), I believe 

we’re the conduit that turns the commander’s 

vision into reality. Mission command is more 

than just a doctrinal term you spout when 

nothing else comes to mind. No commander 

can be everywhere on the battlefield at all 

times. But wherever you find Soldiers, you’re sure to find an 

NCO, and the commander has placed his trust and confidence 

in us and the junior officers to execute the missions within 

his intent. There are no better Soldiers on the battlefield, who 

know how to execute the wide variety of tasks required in a 

counterinsurgency (COIN), than today’s young NCOs and 

officers. I have devoted myself to doing everything in my power 

to make them successful.

There are certain skills (beyond the basic combat skills) 

in which every Soldier should be proficient in today’s COIN 

environment, regardless of their rank, branch, or expertise. Those 

skill sets are—

Negotiations

Cultural Understanding

Language

Counter-IED, Counter-Sniper

Economy of Force (EOF), Rules of Engagement (ROE)

Search, Detain, Prosecute

Tactical Questioning

Every Soldier a Sensor and Ambassador

We’ve been at this fight for almost seven years, yet our 

Soldiers are still having a hard time using the Army’s basic 

commands in Arabic, Dari, or Pashtun. The Iraqi Security Force 

(ISF) and Afghan Security Force (ANSF) are taking the lead 

more and more each day. Our interaction with them and the 

civilian population grows exponentially just before we hand off 

each traffic control point (TCP), joint security station (JSS), or 

police station to the ISF/ANSF.

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

The lieutenant isn’t the only Soldier in the 

platoon that uses the interpreter. Building a 

good rapport with your “terp” and setting down 

some ground rules for negotiations or key leader 

engagements are always good practices. I believe 

there are some baseline standards to operating 

on the battlefield. Everyone in the patrol should 

know their part in the 5, 25, and 200 Drill. 

Standing on the shoulder of the road (where the 

IEDs are normally placed) and waiting for your 

sergeant to tell you where to go is not a healthy 

practice. Counter-sniper drills must be wellthought out and rehearsed inside the combat 

outpost (COP). I can tell you that “SniperBoy” 

doesn’t like us to be alongside or behind him, 

nor does he like us to use available cover.

When in doubt, don’t shoot. You don’t want an Iraqi or Afghan 

father to walk up to your platoon leader or platoon sergeant and 

say, “You killed my son.” Positive identification (PID) is just that, 

and quickly recognizing a threat is another drill that can be taught 

while we’re back in the rear training for the next deployment.

Identify the “bully” in the platoon after a catastrophic event. 

He’s the one who can’t wait to get back outside the wire and 

indiscriminately make things right. Finding the right bad guy is 

usually a long and tedious intel-driven process, but well worth 

the effort. It’ll prevent the creation of new enemies and will bring 

the civilian population over to our side. 

To be a good sensor, a Soldier must recognize normal activity. 

We can start by using a long-practiced Cavalry Scout technique of 

maintaining a journal. We should document who lives across the 

road from our COP, what vehicles they use to travel, daily habits and 

routines, vehicle or dismounted traffic. It’ll build a great picture for 

the Soldier of what normal activity looks like, and then those odd 

vehicles, people, or events will stand out from the daily routine. We’re 

under observation as soon as we leave the wire, why not them? 

Proficiency in these skills is as important as our technical 

expertise. These competencies get us from the COP/forward 

operations base (FOB)/JSS to the objective and carry us through 

the completion of our mission. 

With the large turnover of Soldiers after a deployment, and the 

build-up of the formation for the next deployment, a lot of hard 

lessons are lost. We can set our units up for success if we solidify 

the unit tactical standing operating procedures (TACSOP) before 

R+90 and the team PCSs to the four winds. At least the new guys 

will know what right looks like. They can take it from there.

It’s a great time to be a Soldier, and especially an engineer. 

“Praise the Lord, now pass the bullets.”
4 Engineer April-June 2008

Lead The Way 

By Command Sergeant Major Clinton J. Pearson

United States Army Engineer School

Greetings Sappers! I hope and pray that 

all has been well with our Soldiers, 

Families, and Civilians who have 

given so much to our Regiment, our Army, 

and our nation. This is my final article as your 

Regimental Command Sergeant Major. I am 

extremely grateful for your support, sacrifices, 

and accomplishments. 

I am truly blessed for the opportunity to serve 

our nation and Regiment while our military is at 

war. Everything we have done makes me proud 

to be an American—proud to live in a nation 

that is obliging for good in the world and values 

human life; where we “hold these truths to be 

self-evident: that all men are created equal, and 

that they are endowed by their creator with 

certain unalienable rights, that among these are 

life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” I’m so thankful that we 

have men and women who are willing to answer the call to protect 

our way of life; many have paid the ultimate sacrifice for the liberty 

and freedom we enjoy every day. These God-gifted men and women 

are willing to step out of America’s sandbox to help give liberty and 

freedom to oppressed people in other nations. Today, we continue 

to stand on the shoulders of these giants, continuing our efforts to 

provide peace and stability around the world. I will forever keep 

each of you in my daily thoughts and prayers. To the Families that 

have lost loved ones in past or present conflicts, you will remain our 

nation’s greatest treasures.

I would like to highlight a few of the many accomplishments 

we have made over the past four and a half years that fall into the 

T3 areas of Taking Care, Transforming, and Training. Let’s first 

address Taking Care, specifically regarding engineer senior enlisted 

promotions. I am proud of our Regiment in this area because we set 

many records, especially during the most recent E7-E9 promotion 

boards. Here are some statistics:

51 master sergeants were selected for sergeant major (the

largest E9 selection rate engineers have had in decades).

191 sergeants first class were selected for master sergeant.

352 staff sergeants were selected for sergeant first class.

We also set records regarding Transforming and Training. Our 

Army has undergone the most rigorous transformation in history, 

while engaged in the War on Terrorism. Our Regiment has also 

undergone a significant transformation from IET, AIT, EOBC, 

NCOES, to the structure of battalions, brigades, companies, sections, 

and teams that support the combatant commander to the embedded 

engineers in the HBCT. We must continue to strive to provide 

them with the necessary skills and tools to enable the combatant 

commander to ensure mobility in concert with maneuver.

To assist us in this endeavor, the Engineer School has implemented 

several functional courses that provide our Soldiers and leaders with 

■

■

■

the skills and tools that have proven to be force 

multipliers, including the following:

Combat Search Operations Course 

Route Reconnaissance/Clearance 

 Operations Course (R2C2)

Route Reconnaissance/ Clearance

 Operations Course – Sapper (R2C2-S)

Route Reconnaissance/Clearance 

 Operations – Maintainer (R2C2-M) Course

Area Clearance Course

Improvised Explosive Device Defeat –

 Train the Trainer (IEDD-T3) Course

Dog Detachments/SSD

Improvised Explosive Device Defeat –

Train the Trainer (IEDD-T3) Mobile Training Team (MTT)

Course. 

Two other important courses are the joint Urban Mobility 

Breaching Course (UMBC) at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, 

which has greatly improved the Sappers’ ability to fight and win in 

an urban environment; and the Explosive Ordnance Clearance Agent 

(EOCA) Course at Fort Leonard Wood, which provides basic skills 

and knowledge required to perform as EOCA. All these courses are 

relevant to the current and future fight and provide our Soldiers with 

the tools and skill sets needed to succeed.

Regarding NCOES, we realize that we cannot completely give 

up our technical skills for combat skills. Therefore, we are currently 

relooking the NCO technical competency skill sets. In the meantime, 

however, I ask the leadership to continue to allow NCOs to attend 

the Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course (BNCOC) and the 

Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC). Both are 

extremely important to the career progression of NCOs and greatly 

enhance their ability to perform their wartime mission.

I also ask you to continue to support another area that is near 

and dear to my heart—the Engineer Regiment’s annual Best Sapper 

Competition. This event was created three years ago and grows 

stronger every year. We continue to see more and more participants 

and obtain more and more support. It is an amazing and inspiring 

competition that shows our engineers knee-deep in action!

In closing, I’d like to welcome back those Soldiers who have 

recently returned from a deployment. And to those who have recently 

departed, I wish a safe and speedy return home. God bless you and 

the fallen comrades and their Families. We will never forget you. 

Finally, I again would like to thank each of you for your support, 

dedication, selfless service, professionalism, tremendous efforts, 

and inspiration during the past four and a half years. It has been an 

amazing once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to serve as your Engineer 

Regimental Command Sergeant Major. I salute each of you and wish 

you Godspeed. Essayons!!! Sapper Strong!!! Army Strong!!! 

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■
April-June 2008 Engineer 5

On 8 May, the spotlight of ENFORCE 2008

was on the Regimental Change of Responsibility ceremony, not only to celebrate the 

great event and the great people involved but also to 

highlight the crucial role and responsibility of our 

senior noncommissioned officers (NCOs).

Command Sergeant Major (CSM) Clinton J. 

Pearson and his wife Mollie were honored and 

thanked for their service to our Regiment in this key 

leadership role, and the saber was passed to CSM 

Robert J. Wells and his wife Ann, as they assumed 

responsibility. 

CSM Wells has a remarkable background—highly 

decorated with two combat tours; Airborne, Ranger, 

Air Assault, and Sapper; Drill Sergeant; Exchange 

NCO with the Australian Army; and he has excelled 

in every leadership position from squad leader to 

CSM. A great engineer, he has distinguished himself 

most recently as a combined arms, full spectrum 

warrior as CSM of the 1st Brigade Combat Team (BCT), 

4th Infantry Division, in Iraq and CSM of the Operations 

Group at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California. 

CSM Wells is clearly the right person in the right seat of our 

Regimental Bus, as we make the journey to Building Great 

Engineers for full spectrum operations in an era of persistent 

conflict.

CSM Wells entered the military at Columbus, Ohio, on

15 January 1980. After basic and advanced individual

training (AIT), he completed airborne training with the

43d Airborne Company and was then assigned to the 82d 

Airborne Division, with primary duties as an M60 machine 

gunner. In 1984, he was assigned to the 5th Infantry Division 

at Fort Polk, Louisiana, as a combat engineer squad leader. He 

was promoted to staff sergeant (SSG) and was a platoon sergeant 

until his reenlistment to the Federal Republic of Germany and 

the 130th Engineer Brigade in 1986. There, he was a squad 

leader with Alpha Company, 317th Engineer Battalion, until 

his selection for drill sergeant duties at Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri, in 1989. While serving two years on “the trail,” 

he was promoted to sergeant first class (SFC) and worked

briefly at the Drill Sergeant School, until his reassignment to 

the 65th Engineer Battalion at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, in 

1992. While at Schofield Barracks, he was a platoon sergeant 

with Alpha Company, battalion operations sergeant, and first 

sergeant (1SG) for Bravo Company, 65th Engineer Battalion.

In 1996, he was transferred to the 101st Airborne Division at 

Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where he was 1SG for Headquarters 

and Headquarters Company, then Bravo Company, 326th 

Engineer Battalion, until 1999. He was then selected to be the 

Regiment’s Combat Engineer Exchange NCO, with duties 

in Sydney, Australia. While in Australia, he was promoted 

to sergeant major (SGM) and was transferred to Canungra, 

Queensland, to teach at Australia’s Regional Training Center. 

In 2001, he was promoted to CSM and assigned to the

4th Infantry Division and the 299th Engineer Battalion at Fort 

Hood, Texas, where he deployed with the 299th to Operation 

Iraqi Freedom I, Tikrit, Iraq. The 299th took part as the screening 

element on Operation Red Dawn that resulted in the capture of 

Saddam Hussein on 13 December 2003. Upon redeployment 

from Iraq, he was selected to be CSM of the 1st Brigade,

4th Infantry Division, and helped the brigade transform to 

the new unit of action and become 1st BCT, 4th Infantry 

Division. The BCT deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom

05-07 in December 2005 and operated around Taji, Iraq, until 

its return to Fort Hood in December 2006. He later became the 

Operations Group CSM at the National Training Center.

CSM Wells’ military schools include all phases of the 

Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES), 

Ranger School, Sapper Leader Course, Drill Sergeant School, 

and Airborne and Air Assault Schools. 

He has been awarded the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star 

(2), the Purple Heart, and the Combat Action Badge and is 

a recipient of the Engineer Regiment’s Bronze de Fleury 

Medal. He is also a Legionnaire in the Order of Saint Maurice, 

a Noble Patron of Armor in the Order of Saint George, and a 

member of the Honorable Order of Saint Barbara.

CSM Wells is married to the former Elizabeth Ann 

Haywood of Cambridge, Ohio. They have one daughter, 

Audrey, who lives in California. 

Regimental Change

of Responsibility

Outgoing Regimental CSM Clinton Pearson, Engineer School Commandant BG Gregg Martin, and new Regimental CSM Robert Wells
6 Engineer April-June 2008

When Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp 

spoke to ENFORCE attendees in 2007, he had 

been the 52d Chief of Engineers for less than a 

week, and he focused more on the future of the Regiment than 

its current state. But when he addressed ENFORCE 2008

attendees on 8 May 2008, he had had a year to assess the Regiment, and he spoke about where he thinks it is now and about 

some of the opportunities it has to go from good to great.

“What a privilege it is to be an engineer,” he said. “I want 

to talk to you about our Regiment today. I’m going to give 

you a sense of where I think we are.”

He spoke of a book by Rick Warren called The Purpose 

Driven Life, in which Warren talks about metaphors—particularly a life metaphor. Unlike a simile, which would be “your 

life is like. . .,” a metaphor would be “your life is....” Warren 

suggests that—

Life is a test.

Life is a trust.

Life is a temporary assignment.

LTG Van Antwerp said, “I think that was written for military people.” He explained that statement by saying, “We’re 

all going to be tested; we’re being tested right now as a Regiment like never before.” He continued, “There’s a certain 

trust that we have that you only give to people in this profession. We’re a profession within a profession. The military is a 

profession, but the Engineer Regiment is a profession within 

that profession.” He said, “Then, there’s the temporary nature 

of our assignment. In one sense, the spiritual sense, you won’t 

live forever, and then it will be eternity. And in our case, 

it’s the 20 or more moves we make during our career. But 

what wonderful things we’ve seen during those temporary

assignments.”

■

■

■

By Ms. Shirley A. Bridges
April-June 2008 Engineer 7

LTG Van Antwerp suggested another metaphor for life, 

and that is that it’s a race. Or, more specifically, a relay race. 

He said that he looks out into the audience and sees all parts 

of the relay, and he thinks about what his part is. In a relay 

race, “You start with a baton, and hopefully all your team 

members are world class. The first runner runs his leg, and 

there’s a stretch on the track where he has to make the handoff. He can’t make it before that, and he can’t make it after, or 

he hasn’t run the race to win. He’ll be disqualified. In a relay 

race, you have to run the race to win, but you also have to 

run it within the rules.” He added, “Another part that has to 

happen is that, hopefully, you will finish well on your leg of 

the race. As you come to the person you have to hand off to, 

he has to be going at full speed when you make the handoff. 

That’s where you can drop the ball.” He said that when he 

thinks of the youth, and those of us who are older and experienced, we have to be sure we make the handoff. 

“Life is a race. Life is a relay race.” He said that if you look 

at the track today, it’s a slippery track—a rainy track. And one 

reason is that there’s a lot of competition for resources. He 

gave a couple of examples:

By 2015, 40 percent of the world’s nations will be water stressed. At some point, there are people who won’t 

have drinking water. There’s a lot of tension created by 

that in the world, and a lot of tension at the fuel pumps. He

said he thinks about that for the Regiment. “When we

think about fuel efficiency and the vehicles we use, and

the armored vehicles that we’ve never had in these quantities before, what happens when fuel goes to $10 a gallon or 

$20 a gallon? Can it go there? I don’t know, but the track

is slippery and wet.”

The cost of food has gone up 45 percent in the last 9 years. 

There’s so much pressure on food stores—because we all

want to be energy independent—that some of these stores

are being converted to biofuels.

“That’s the context in which we’re running this race,” 

he said. “But on the other side, there are plusses that make 

this a special time—a time of opportunity like never

before.” Some of the opportunities he sees are—

The Army’s budget is greater this year than it has ever 

been in the history of the U.S. Army. About half of

it is supplemental, and the other half is base.

The base is twice as big as it was in 1995, but

the force is smaller. Because of that, we should

make sure that what we have is the best.

The Army is restationing, and we have one

chance to get it right. We also have a lot of

changes due to the Base Realignment and 

Closure (BRAC) Commission—and we have a

deadline to be done with that by 2011. There’s

another deadline in our civil works in that we have to

have New Orleans to a 100-year hurricane-protection

level by 2011.

■

■

■

■

The Army will grow by another 100,000 people. That 

number includes 10,000 more engineer Soldiers in the 

next 3 or 4 years. The Chief of Staff of the Army, General 

George W. Casey Jr., has said that the Army is now at

1 million and that it will grow by another 100,000, and 

that is it. He has told us to get him the best Army we can

within 1.1 million. 

We have some of the best classrooms in the world—not

just classrooms in the usual sense, but classrooms called

projects, where you can go to school and you can build a

competency that we’ve never built before.

 “That’s the track,” he said. “Part of it is slippery and rainy, 

and part of it is full of opportunities like we may never know 

again.”

“So what do we do about it, and where are we?” he asked. 

“If we have a scale that goes from poor – fair – good – very 

good – great, where are we now? What do you measure it 

against? You have to have a measuring stick. You can’t just 

say ‘it’s fair’ or ‘it’s very good.’ We have to have a measuring 

stick. What does it mean for us to go to great? If we’re going to go from where we are—from wherever you think we 

are—to great, what does it mean?”

He described several aspects. 

“One aspect is that you have to 

go individually to great. We 

need to get more engineer officers with engineering degrees. 

Where are we on that, by the 

way? I think we’re fair. In

recent years, 40 percent of our 

officers coming in have 

had engineering 

degrees. It 

used to 

be 60 to 

70 percent. 

■

■
8 Engineer April-June 2008

Where would you rank that? We have a team assembled now 

to try to figure out the right percentage of engineers for the 

profession.”

“You have to go to school,” he continued. “It starts here 

with the Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC), and it continues your whole lifetime through. You need to get boned up on 

our profession and take it upon yourself to become personally 

educated. That’s your responsibility. The Engineer School 

will help, but we’re not going to do it for you.”

He also said that we can go to great as a unit—a small 

unit, a squad, a buddy team, and as a Regiment. “It builds,” 

he said, “but it starts with greatness of individuals. So where 

are we? I would say that right now, the Regiment is good. But 

I think we have an opportunity to go to great.”

LTG Van Antwerp listed four things that he uses as

measurements:

You have to deliver superior performance in all you do. 

He said that this is important whether you’re in construction, 

doing permits, in a sapper squad, or in a unit building a forward operating base (FOB). In military programs, you have 

to deliver on time—or better yet, ahead of time. And you also 

need to do it within cost, and get the full scope of the contract. 

Innovative use of contractors could possibly get up to 15 percent cost savings and 30 percent time savings.

You have to set the standards for your profession. He believes that you’ll know when you get there, because people 

will ask you to tell them what to do. They will steal ideas from 

you shamelessly and will want to benchmark on you. How do 

people evaluate us? Do they come to us and say that we set 

the professional standards? During Katrina, we reached out 

and tapped the world for answers and found that the Dutch 

build 10,000-year levees. “But we want people tapping us and 

saying that we’re the experts. I think we’re good here, but we 

can go to great.”

You have to do something distinctly (positively) unique 

for your nation and other nations. He said that a lot of people would say that the Corps is known for something unique 

in New Orleans, but it wouldn’t be in a positive unique sense. 

We used to build levees in such a way that they only offered 

100-year protection, but now they’re built like dams, which 

offer about a 10,000-year protection. And in the Gulf Region 

Division, we built more than 1,000 schools that held 400,000 

students. Not all are occupied, and some don’t have teachers. 

And if the local people don’t buy in where we build, and there 

is no one to watch over the schools, the doors and windows 

and copper wire will disappear, and we’ll have to start over. 

I give us a very good here, but parts of the handoff need to 

go to great.

You have to be built to last. “You are built to last when you 

can look out 10 to15 years and the force is there.” So—to use 

the metaphor of the relay race—you have to have younger 

people coming on to hand off to.

He mentioned two books that engineers should read for 

their professional growth, both written by Jim Collins. One of 

them is Good to Great. LTG Van Antwerp said that he knows 

Collins, and he asked him if he’d ever used an example of a 

government organization like the Corps in his studies. Collins 

said, “You go from good to great, and we’ll write about it. 

You start taking notes, and if you get there we’ll know it when 

we see it.” The other book is Built to Last. “That’s where we 

want to go,” said LTG Van Antwerp. “I think we’re good, but 

we have an opportunity to go to great.”

He told a story about how in 1995, a new police commissioner took over the New York City Police Department at a 

time when the city had the highest crime rate of any big city 

in the country. After assessing what was going on there, the 

new commissioner put a note on the bulletin board that read, 

“We’re not a team of report takers; we’re the police force.” 

With that, he began to change the thinking of the department 

from “input” to “output.” He discovered that 75 percent of 

all police commissioners got fired because, when their performance was evaluated, the question they were asked was 

“What happened to the felony crime rate in your place?” Most 

of those who got fired had been focused on things like how 

many arrests were made, the number of reports written, and 

the number of cases closed. LTG Van Antwerp said that the 

commissioner did something that you’re going to have to do 

if you’re going to go to great. He put an audacious goal on the 

New York City Police Department: He said that he expected 

to have a double-digit decrease in felonies. So he developed a 

plan, and they made it—and he’s still there.

LTG Van Antwerp said that we need to think “What would 

be the output so that we’d know we were delivering superior 

performance? We have a lot of missions to deliver. So what is 

the output, and how do we know if we’re great or not?”

He described the following scenario: The strategy for brigade combat teams (BCTs) now is to go in and build small

patrol bases or small forward operating bases (FOBs). But 

that hasn’t always been the case. With the old strategy, we 

tried to gather human intelligence (HUMINT) from the Iraqis 

as we patrolled during the day. But they wouldn’t tell us anything because they knew that we would be going back to our 

FOBs at night, and they’d be left there. They knew that they 

were being watched to see who they talked to. The new strategy is to get out in patrol bases or small FOBs right in the 

middle of the main streets, and at night we stay there.

“You have to face reality, which 

is what we’re doing now in the 

Regiment. How do we recruit the 

force we need for the future?”
April-June 2008 Engineer 9

So if you’re a young captain, and the BCT commander 

says, “You see these five buildings here? I know they look 

decrepit, and they’re not what we’re used to. But that’s my 

BCT headquarters, captain. You’re my engineer. I want you 

to figure out what the electric generating requirements are to 

run that. We have to have lights, we’ll want showers, you’ll 

need to provide security and lay in the communications . . .

I want to have the whole geospatial picture here.”

“What if you as a captain didn’t study engineering, or you 

didn’t learn how to do these things in your basic and career 

courses? You are in a professional dilemma.” He suggests 

that the way to get the experience and knowledge in our 

people so they can do what we’re asking them to do is 

to first make sure that they’re in the right job and then 

train and educate them.

So what is the framework to get all of this? How do we 

do it? He suggests that the framework in Good to Great is a 

good one to use.

You have to have disciplined people. You have to have 

disciplined personnel, and you have to have disciplined leaders. And what do these leaders need to be like? The book 

shows a chart with leaders at Levels 1 through 5. There 

are two compelling traits of Level 5 leaders:

– Be personally humble. One definition of humble 

is “when your competency is properly placed”—

God first, and then other people (your leaders). Another definition is that you don’t need to think less 

about yourself, but think about yourself less.

– Have a professional will or ambition for the 

business (not for yourself). You have to resolve to 

do whatever is necessary to make the company great. You 

have to get your people in the right seat of the bus, after first 

making sure they’re on the right bus. Don’t hire someone if 

you’re not convinced that that person is the right one for the 

job. And if you think you need to make personnel changes, 

do it now. You have to do that to go to great. In addition, if 

you have a problem in your organization, don’t put your best 

people there. Put them on your biggest opportunities.

You have to put disciplined thought into it.

– Determine your “Hedgehog Concept.” This involves 

focusing your efforts on what you do best. “You can’t do a 

million things and do them well, so focus your actions along 

your mission.”

– Confront the brutal facts. “You have to face reality, 

which is what we’re doing now in the Regiment. How do we 

recruit the force we need for the future?”

You have to have disciplined action. You have to have 

self-disciplined people to have disciplined action. They must 

be able to stay focused on the mission and not be swayed by 

deterrents.

Another book that LTG Van Antwerp recommended 

for engineers to read is Talent Is Never Enough by John

Maxwell. One of the 

things Maxwell talks 

about is character; nothing preserves your talent 

more than your character. 

The other part is passion.

He talked about a survey that was done on 1,500 

people coming out of college. Of 

those, 83 percent took their first 

job based on money. They said 

“ I ’ m going to

make

all 

the money I need, and then I’ll go do what I really love to 

do.” The other 17 percent said, “I’m going to take that first 

job and do what I’m passionate about, what I love to do, and 

I’ll let the chips fall where they may.” They tracked the group 

to see how many millionaires there were after 20 years, and 

they determined that there were 101 millionaires out of the 

group of 1,500. Of those 101 millionaires, 100 were from the 

17 percent group—the passionate group.

“If you don’t have passion,” he said, “you need to find 

another seat on the bus.”

LTG Van Antwerp ended his address with “I say to you as 

a young person—or as an older person. I am passionate. I love 

what I do. I love what we do. And we have such an opportunity like never before. We can build our competency so we 

can go to great. But you have to have passion. If you don’t, 

we need to find a different seat for you. As a Regiment, we’re 

good, but we have an opportunity to go to great.”

“Thank you all for all you do. Sappers lead the way. God 

bless you, this Regiment, and God bless America.”

Ms. Bridges is the managing editor of the Engineer Professional Bulletin. She has been a member of the bulletin staff 

for the past 13 years, either as editor or managing editor.

“I’m going to make

all
10 Engineer April-June 2008

When do you transform the Army? When you are at 

war and have the resources and real-world classrooms to test things.

When do you build the bench and needed competencies in 

the Engineer Regiment? When you have the largest workload 

since World War II (maybe in our history) and the resources 

and real-world classrooms to train the next generation and test 

things.

To move from good to great (delivering superior performance in all missions; setting the standards for our profession; having a unique, positive impact on our 

nation and other nations; and building a Regiment to last), 

we need Level 5 leaders1 (those who put the organization’s 

success above their personal success) and the right people, 

disciplined people, on the Regiment’s bus and in the right seat 

on the bus.

We need to be “Army Strong” at all levels, from entry level 

to the most experienced, with a good balance of diversity—

age, ethnicity, gender, and education. We need leaders in their 

field, certified as professional engineers and project management professionals, and licensed to professionally practice 

their craft.

Here is the context in which we work:

Largest workload.

Aging infrastructure.

Aging workforce, with thousands of baby boomers 

eligible to retire in the coming years.

A shortage of college graduates with degrees in science, 

technology, engineering, and math.

■

■

■

■

Other countries, such 

as China and India, are 

graduating three to five

times as many engineers 

per capita as we are in the 

United States.

Many of you have heard 

me talk about the walnuts 

and rice jar, walnuts being 

the big priorities.2 Well, 

improving our technical 

competency is a walnut. 

Our increased workload 

gives us a limited window of time—three to four 

years—to turn the trends 

around and build the force. 

See Built to Last, another 

book by Jim Collins.3

We have already begun a number of initiatives. We recently held a 

National Technical Competency Workshop at Headquarters, 

USACE, in which representatives from academia, private industry, contract partners, customers, and professional societies, as well as teammates from each division and senior leaders from headquarters, tackled the major challenges we face 

on this issue. It was also the focus at this year’s ENFORCE at 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, in May.

Some of the initiatives we’re considering address training 

and equipping our current workforce; recruiting at the national, regional, and local levels; and motivating students to study 

math and science.

Regarding the current workforce, we want to ensure that 

the Regiment’s employees are challenged and growing the 

skills they have by giving them the right amount of technical 

work. We also want to help our teammates achieve the technical certification in their career field. We’ll be considering a 

“beefed-up” training-with-industry program and looking for 

opportunities to bring the trainers into the Regiment. That may 

include more frequent use of virtual training programs, where 

appropriate.

We could use a more structured mentoring plan to make 

sure our employees are getting the guidance, support, and 

training they need throughout their career life cycle. I hope 

to foster an environment where the staff is part of a lifetime 

of learning and teaching. And we need to be diligent with exit 

interviews—when our teammates leave the organization, 

gather that anecdotal information about how to better retain 

our quality staff members.

Looking to the future, we have to become the employer of 

choice for new graduates, or even for established professionals who are looking for that midterm career change. We have 

■

(continued on page 19)
April-June 2008 Engineer 11

For ENFORCE 2008, we chose to focus on the human 

dimension because, in the words of our Chief of 

Engineers, Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp, 

“It’s ALL about PEOPLE!” Soldiers, noncommissioned 

officers (NCOs), warrant officers, officers, civilians, and 

Families—they are the heart, soul, brains, and essence of all 

that we are and do as a Regiment, and they are what unites the 

entire Regiment into the incredible team that we are.

Since 9/11, the Regiment has played an increasingly 

critical role for our Army, joint force, and nation, as we 

operate across the full spectrum of operations around 

the globe. From the tactical to strategic levels, and from 

environments ranging from stable peace to war, engineers 

have been crucial. One of the key observations and lessons 

learned during this period is that full spectrum operations 

have driven up the requirements for engineer effects and have 

revealed a capability gap in terms of engineer force structure, 

organizations, and individual technical competency. While 

we continue to build the modular engineer force and work to 

improve force structure deficiencies, we chose to focus on 

the people part of Building Great Engineers at ENFORCE, 

because people are by far the most important element; and 

investment in people also offers the greatest long-term payoff 

for our Regiment and Army. 

So what kind of people do we want, and for what 

purpose? 

The Regiment needs people of great character and values, 

who are fit, tough, smart, innovative, and adaptive and who 

are energetic, passionate, and committed to the cause. These 

people will be charged to plan, orchestrate, and execute full 

spectrum engineering operations, which range from tip-ofthe-spear sapper and combat engineering, to general and 

geospatial engineering, to massive reconstruction of entire 

nations (such as Iraq and Afghanistan) and parts of our own 

(such as the Gulf Coast), and a wide range of diverse engineer 

missions and requirements in between and across the spectrum 

of operations (see Figure 1).

By Brigadier General Gregg F. Martin

JSS	 joint security station

LOC	 line of communication

PRT	 provincial reconstruction team

SPT	 support

Legend:

COP	 combat outpost

CSC	 civil support center

EPRT	 embedded provincial reconstruction team

IA	 Iraqi army

IED	 improvised explosive device

Figure 1

Chart by COL Dan Grey, MNC-I C-7, FEB 2008
12 Engineer April-June 2008

Our goal as a Regiment is to get the right people, with 

the right capability, at the right point in time and space, in 

order to deliver the desired engineer effect in full spectrum 

operations. Although there are many aspects to achieving this, 

we have chosen to focus initially on the People, Training and 

Education, and Leader Development aspects of this goal.

A key challenge is to figure out how to effectively harness 

all of the great engineer capability we have resident in our total 

Army Engineer Regiment—which includes the Active Army, 

Army National Guard (ARNG), United States Army Reserve 

(USAR), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 

Directorates of Public Works (DPWs), and contractors. Yet, 

we know from experience that even after we harness all of 

this capability, we still will not have enough engineers to 

meet all of the requirements and will have to partner with 

our joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational 

(JIIM) engineer colleagues. JIIM is the way we will head in 

the future. More to follow on this as our journey unfolds...

To achieve these desired ends—and with “Requirements 

and Future Roles/Missions” as the driver, we have chosen 

to pursue a holistic, cradle-to-grave approach (see Figure 2)

—to include “Accessions,” “Training and Education,” 

“Employment,” and “Retention”—all wrapped together 

and linked through a “Strategic Communications/

Engagement” plan. With the goal of Building Great Engineers 

for full spectrum operations and effectively managing our most 

precious resource—people—ENFORCE 2008 participants 

broke into six work groups (shown bolded in this paragraph) 

to ask the big questions, understand the issues, see ourselves, 

identify gaps, and develop an action plan for the way ahead. 

We actually started work back in January when we kicked 

off our initial Engineer Leader Technical Competency (ELTC) 

Study. (See previous issues of “The Engineer Blast” and the 

ENFORCE 2008 issue of Engineer, January-March 2008,

page 4, for details.) After several months of research, 

collaboration, analysis, and assessment, the charge to each 

work group was to start with a blank sheet of paper and 

unconstrained thinking and—

Identify low-hanging fruit and quick wins.

Identify what we do not know and need to investigate

(scope out research paper topics to leverage our engineers

who are going to school and need paper topics).

Determine best practices wherever they might be found.

“Think different,” as we develop the way ahead.

■

■

■

■

Figure 2

IOT	 	 in order to

MILCON	 	 military construction

Ops	 	 operations

RC	 	 Reserve Component

Rgt	 regiment

STRATCOMS	 strategic communications

SWEAT	 sewage, water, electricity, academics, and trash

Legend:

AC	 Active Component

COIN	 counterinsurgency operations

COPs	 combat outposts

DOTMLPF	 doctrine, organization, training and education, materiel,

leader development, personnel, and facilities

Engr	 engineer

FOBs	 forward operating bases

FS	 full spectrum
April-June 2008 Engineer 13

Guiding principles were to “Steal [Good] Ideas 

Shamelessly” (SIS), “Share [Good] Ideas Willingly” (SIW), 

communicate transparently, brainstorm (there are no “dumb” 

ideas), cross-talk, collaborate, and inform one another. 

In order to unite the Regiment, yet provide diversity of 

thought, each work group had a healthy mix of uniformed and 

civilian leaders from all elements of the Regiment, as well as 

a mix of officers, warrant officers, NCOs and civilians, with 

a general officer responsible for leading and pulling the effort 

together.

A final step and forcing function was the requirement 

for each work group to deliver an action plan back-brief to 

the Chief of Engineers, the Engineer School Commandant, 

and all of our ENFORCE colleagues on the final day of the 

conference. This led to a rich dialog and cross-fertilization 

of ideas. Each work group followed up with a written action 

plan that was delivered to the Commandant at the end of 

May. We are now transforming these six written plans into 

a Regimental Campaign Plan for Building Great Engineers, 

which I will brief to the Chief of Engineers by the end of 

July. The Campaign Plan will have clear, measurable goals, 

objectives, and time lines, which will be tracked and briefed 

to the senior leaders of the Regiment every quarter. I will brief 

the Plan to the field during the next Commandant’s VTC – you 

are all invited to listen, dialog, and provide feedback.

In addition, the Chief charged each of the USACE 

Division commanders to develop a comprehensive and 

enduring engineer strategic communications (STRATCOM)/

Engagement/Outreach Program to tell the Army engineer 

story, in order to help Build Great Engineers in their respective 

areas of operation. He directed them to reach out to the entire 

regimental team in their geographical footprint—to include 

USACE; troop units of all compos; Reserve Officer Training 

Corps (ROTC) programs; engineer feeder schools, colleges, 

and universities; the Recruiting Command; regimental alumni; 

Families; United States Military Academy (USMA)/ROTC 

liaison officers; media; relevant professional associations, 

such as the Army Engineer Association (AEA), Society of 

American Military Engineers (SAME), Associated General 

Contractors (AGC), Association of the United States Army 

(AUSA), and others; politicians; and others who can contribute 

to our goal of Building Great Engineers. Each Division 

commander will brief the Chief on his program and execution 

plan at the USACE Senior Leader Conference in August. The 

flywheel is beginning to turn—HOOAH!

Let me assure you that this is not a short-term blip on the 

screen. The intent is to embark on a journey that will plant the 

seeds and shape our people, such that we will enjoy the fruits 

of our labor in the form of great engineers for the next century 

and beyond. This effort is in sync with the Chief’s vision 

of moving from Good to Great1

 and being Built to Last,

2

 in 

accordance with the two leadership classics by Jim Collins. 

(We recommend that you read these two books so you catch 

the Chief’s vision and passion for moving our Regiment to the 

next level.) We will lay out the details and way ahead in future 

issues of “The Engineer Blast,” issues of Engineer, VTCs, and 

other venues in order to ensure transparent communications 

and dialog.

That, in a nutshell, was the hard intellectual work we did 

during ENFORCE. We welcome and need your engagement 

and participation as we embark on our campaign to Build 

Great Engineers for full spectrum operations in an era of 

persistent conflict.

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 Good to Great by Jim C. Collins, Harper Business: New 

York, 2001.

2 Built to Last by Jim C. Collins and Jerry I. Porras, Harper 

Business: New York, 1994, 1997.

“A key challenge is to figure out 

how to effectively harness all of 

the great engineer capability we 

have resident in our total Army 

Engineer Regiment...”
14 Engineer April-June 2008

According to one attendee, if you missed ENFORCE 

2008, you missed the best ENFORCE in nine years.

(The attendee had only been to the last nine!)

Following are just some of the initial findings and 

preliminary recommendations developed during the Fort 

Leonard Wood portion of ENFORCE 2008, “Building 

Great Engineers.” While many of the ideas have yet to be 

approved or prioritized, the intent of this article is to inform 

the Engineer Regiment of the current status of BGE and a 

proposed way ahead to increase engineer leader technical 

and tactical competency for full spectrum operations in an 

era of persistent conflict. Bold, italicized statements are from 

the book by Jim Collins, “Good to Great.”1

“The point is to first get disciplined people who engage 

in very rigorous thinking, who then take disciplined action 

within the framework of a consistent system . . .”

The Fort Leonard Wood portion of ENFORCE 2008 

built on the foundation of the Engineer Leader Technical 

Competency (ELTC) work groups. After five months of 

preparation, the work groups identified the need for engineer 

leaders to have deep tactical and technical competencies in 

several areas to support full spectrum engineer operations, 

which requires the ability to conduct simultaneous offensive, 

defensive, and stability operations. During the Fort Leonard 

Wood portion of ENFORCE, attendees representing the entire 

Engineer Regiment and all ranks rolled up their sleeves and 

developed specific tasks in each of the six ELTC work group 

categories that will allow us to build great engineers across 

the Regiment. The guiding principles were to “Steal [Good] 

Ideas Shamelessly” (SIS), “Share [Good] Ideas Willingly” 

(SIW), communicate transparently, brainstorm, cross-talk, 

collaborate, and inform one another. At the conclusion of the 

conference, each work group briefed the Chief of Engineers, 

the United States Army Engineer School Commandant, 

and all ENFORCE participants on their findings and 

Building Great Engineers (BGE)

Findings and Preliminary Recommendations From ENFORCE 2008 Work Groups

By Captain William E. Mohr, Colonel Jerry C. Meyer, Colonel Robert A.Tipton, Colonel William H. Haight, 

Lieutenant Colonel Jeffery A. Anderson, Mr. Steve H. Tupper, and Brigadier General Gregg F. Martin

Turning the

Flywheel!
April-June 2008 Engineer 15

recommendations. While a consolidated plan of these findings 

and recommendations is still being formalized for approval 

and dissemination, following are some outcomes of each work 

group’s efforts. For reference, the six work groups comprising 

the ELTC Study and ENFORCE 2008 were—

Future Roles, Missions, Delivery Methods

Accessions

Training and Education

Employment

Retention

Strategic Communications

“Great vision, without great people, is irrelevant.”

The Future Roles, Missions, Delivery Methods

work group took a threedimensional look at the 

missions engineers are 

tasked to perform by joint 

doctrine (see figure below). 

The critical question we 

asked ourselves was “Do we 

have the right engineer units, 

organizations, staffs, and 

individuals to deliver full 

spectrum engineering at every organizational level, in every 

mission environment, for all engineer mission requirements?” 

■

■

■

■

■

■

Throughout the 15-plus hours of focused discussions, a key 

concept continuously emerged. No matter which mission set 

we analyzed, the overarching thought was that the Modular 

Engineer Force provides the Regiment and the Army with the 

right capabilities for full spectrum engineering. The Regiment 

is currently challenged when it comes to synchronizing and 

planning full spectrum engineering. Without an identified 

and properly resourced and trained engineer staff that fully 

understands full spectrum engineering operations, the 

effects at all levels are more likely to be unsynchronized and 

inefficient. 

Another key concept that emerged was that current Army 

and engineer doctrine does not identify capacity development 

or capacity building as a resourced mission driver. While the 

Army’s White Paper titled “Stability Operations in an Era 

of Persistent Conflict,” written by MG David A. Fastabend 

and endorsed by LTG James D. Thurman, identifies the 

concept and its criticality in full spectrum operations, our 

doctrine and our task lists do not. To properly resource 

engineer units for full spectrum operations, we must accept 

this as a mission and plan for it at all levels. A quote from 

the White Paper states, “Capacity building is fundamental to 

success in stability operations. It is the process of creating 

an environment, supported by appropriate policy and legal 

frameworks, which fosters institutional development, 

community participation, human resources development 

and enterprise creation, and the strengthening of managerial 

systems. Capacity building is a long-term and continuing 

process.” 

Legend:

ASCC	 Army Service Component Command

COCOM	 combatant command

ERDC	 Engineer Research and Development Center

JTF	 joint task force

TEC	 theater engineer command
In a good to great transformation, people are not your 

most important asset. The right people are.

The Accessions work 

group analyzed the methodology by which the Engineer Regiment accumulates 

talent. The limited lateral 

entry of qualified personnel 

into a military career means 

that the people brought into 

the Engineer Regiment today 

will be our leaders tomorrow. 

Therefore, the accessions 

methodology becomes a 

key component of our talent 

management system and 

must be thoroughly understood.

Research conducted by the employment work group 

concluded that over 60 percent of all engineer officer positions 

require some type of an engineering degree. However, last year 

only 28 percent of the accessed officers had an engineering 

degree. In an effort to improve engineer officer accessions, the 

accessions work group made multiple suggestions.

First, the Army must explore ways to allow the Engineer 

Branch to access enough officers with engineering degrees. 

The accessions work group stresses the importance of 

individuals freely selecting the Engineer Branch, rather 

than being forced to join the Regiment. The campaign plan 

must include aggressive strategic communications to those 

populations deemed most desirable for entry into the Engineer 

Regiment. It was also recommended that fewer first and second 

choice nonengineering degreed individuals be admitted into 

the Regiment, while allowing more second and third choice 

degreed engineers to branch engineers. Other accessing 

ideas include the ability to guarantee degreed engineers the 

automatic opportunity to branch engineers.

Current operational demands require representation from 

multiple engineering fields, to include (but not limited to) 

civil, mechanical, electrical, and environmental engineering. 

Even with a supplemental education plan, the Regiment must 

access proportional numbers of officers across these fields 

to ensure that future requirements are fulfilled. One idea 

to increase lateral entry of talented engineers is to increase 

engineer marketing to promote branch transfers. The Engineer 

Regiment can exploit its ability to obtain educated engineers 

by targeting officers who have an engineering degree who are 

not in the Engineer Regiment. This accessions strategy can 

also be applied to Officer Candidate School (OCS), enlisted 

Soldiers, and the Department of the Army Civilians who round 

out our Regiment. All of these changes in accession protocol 

should not be misconceived as a onetime “talent grab” by 

the Engineer Regiment, but rather as a permanent engineer 

accessions strategy. The future of the Regiment depends on 

those we access today.

“Greatness is not a function of circumstance. Greatness, 

it turns out, is largely a matter of conscious choice.”

The Training and Education work group focused on 

enabling execution of the same joint capability areas (JCAs) 

examined by the futures work group. In reviewing educational 

systems of U.S. sister Service engineers, as well as allied 

engineers, it was generally determined that our comrades 

not only access more degreed engineers, but they invest 

considerably more in their training and education (time, 

certifications, etc.) once accessed. Looking across officer, 

warrant officer, and noncommissioned officer (NCO) personnel 

categories, the group considered what training or education at 

what point in a career should occur for which personnel. Using 

a spreadsheet/matrix approach, they proposed individual 

training and education that needed to develop over an officer, 

warrant officer, or NCO career to support the selected JCAs.

A key accomplishment of the group was identification of 

an extensive methods-of-delivery list that provided a template 

to help consider different ways to obtain the same knowledge 

or skill. This list extends beyond Army institutional training to 

encompass industry experiences, self-development, civilian 

credentials, and degrees.

Considerable work had been accomplished prior to 

ENFORCE. Areas of concern included the totality of the 

United States Army Engineer School (USAES) educational 

system, current USAES instructional methods, and career 

educational timelines. To keep pace with the growing technical 

demands on the Engineer Regiment, the current educational 

system must be refined and adjusted to ensure a technically 

skilled workforce, as well as one that is tactically proficient.

The overall USAES educational system must adapt to 

accommodate more external factors. For example, Army 

engineers enter the USAES courses at different levels of 

expertise, but everyone must complete the course requirements 

through identical methods. Validation testing should be 

implemented to allow advanced students the opportunity to 

simultaneously receive beneficial training and education 

in other areas, rather than waste time repeating known 

information. To ensure that USAES becomes a world-class 

teaching operation, teachers need to be carefully interviewed 

16 Engineer April-June 2008
and selected based on individual teaching ability. Improving 

technical and tactical competency requires assigning the 

best teachers to be in the schoolhouse, instead of somewhat 

arbitrarily assigning available personnel.

Instructional methods during all USAES courses need 

to move into the 21st century style of teaching. Begin by 

revamping our current classroom instruction into a more 

hands-on approach to benefit the visual learners and increase 

realism. Create a wireless classroom by issuing every student 

a laptop computer and install a wireless network in all USAES 

classrooms. USAES must provide the infrastructure for every 

student to learn in an environment that young students are 

accustomed to.

Currently, our career timeline creates large gaps between 

levels of formal military schooling. We need to reduce these 

gaps by incorporating continuing education courses, to include 

Proponent-Sponsored Engineer Corps Training (PROSPECT) 

courses, satellite courses, and civilian courses. To further 

promote a deep technical competency within the Regiment, 

we need to provide institutional financial support, additional 

time and pay incentives for seeking higher education, and 

licensing within the field of engineering. These efforts will 

foster an environment for technical engineers to grow and 

retain their proficiency. 

“First get the right people on the bus . . . and the right 

people in the right seats . . .”

The Employment work group focused on developing 

a new employment strategy that evaluates, segregates, and 

employs individual talent. Currently, the Regiment uses a 

legacy employment strategy that fills vacant positions with 

available personnel. Without question, human capital is the 

greatest asset in the Engineer Regiment, and developing a 

job assignment system that matches specific talents against 

requirements is a must.

Analysis of current requirements indicates that approximately 40 percent of all engineer colonel positions would be 

best served with an officer who has an engineering degree and 

technical training and certification beyond current professional 

military education (PME). With over 60 percent of all field 

grade positions being technical in nature and requiring an 

engineering or science and technology degree, the Regiment 

must provide career progressions that will develop technical 

leaders. Engineering competency results from the combination 

of education and experience; therefore, the Regiment must 

employ technically educated engineers along defined career 

paths that allow them to gather the necessary engineering 

experiences to become technically proficient. Specific career 

paths must still be developed, but one immediate employment 

idea is to place junior engineer leaders assigned to modified 

table of organization and equipment (MTOE) engineer units 

at installations with United States Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) field offices into short-term USACE utilization 

assignments to support the development of needed technical 

skills. 

There is great potential with the newly expanded role of 

engineer 210A warrant officers to address some capability 

gaps. However, significant effort is needed to develop the 

appropriate education and employment strategy to support their 

development into effective technical experts at the platoon or 

entry level. Additional analysis is still needed to define the 

requirements for engineer NCOs, and initial indications are 

that updated career road maps are needed for them as well.

One method proposed to implement this new talent 

management system is to develop the “Green Pages” concept. 

Specifically, this concept is an interactive online database 

that allows individuals to post resumes and organizations to 

post available positions, which allows for an interactive talent 

search. The data input by users and the various personnel 

assignment organizations will create an open job market. By 

creating a competitive job market, individuals will have to 

develop their talents to be competitive for desired positions. 

In return, the Engineer Regiment will yield an increase in 

technical competency and a more professional workforce. 

“Tremendous power exists in the fact of continued 

improvement and the delivery of results. Point to tangible 

accomplishments . . . people see and feel the buildup of 

momentum, they will line up with enthusiasm.”

The Retention work group found that current retention 

rates and trends reveal that the Engineer Branch is losing 

junior officers at a faster rate than the Army average, and 

April-June 2008 Engineer 17
degreed engineer officers are leaving the Army at a higher rate 

than those without an engineering degree. Similarly, rates of 

separation for enlisted personnel are on the rise, particularly at 

the 20-year mark. To begin to reduce these rates, the retention 

work group suggests an immediate improvement in individual 

mentorship and professional development. Alarming information has arisen from the Building Great Engineers 

project that many of the junior members of the Regiment are 

uneducated about future positions, engineering educational 

opportunities, and other career-enhancing opportunities that 

are provided by the Regiment. It is believed that a focused and 

dedicated mentorship program would improve retention rates 

by continuing to educate junior members on all the Engineer 

Regiment can offer.

In general, the Engineer Regiment must strive to become an 

adaptable organization that fulfills the needs of our people. The 

retention work group provided numerous ways to improve the 

quality of life within the Engineer Regiment. Recommended 

improvements will focus on incentive pay for technical 

engineers, additional duty service obligation requests for 

enlisted post of choice, increased USACE positions for young 

officers to use their technical degrees, and more flexible moves 

between the Reserve Component and Active Army. Results 

from the retention work group also stressed the need for a 

more adaptable employment plan that would attempt to fulfill 

individual desires on type of job and job locations. A balance 

of current Army requirements with personal career ambitions 

must be achieved to improve retention trends.

“Step by step, action by action, decision by decision, 

turn by turn of the flywheel—that adds up to sustained and 

spectacular results.”

Tasked with analyzing and updating the engineer marketing 

plan, the Strategic Communications work group identified 

multiple areas to improve, but updating and improving 

the engineer website is the top priority. Other 21st century 

communications methods need to be improved as well, to 

include engineer videos, television ads, shows, and creating 

an interactive web portal.

Prior to the creation of our delivery methods, concentrated 

efforts must be conducted to create an effective engineer brand 

and a coordinated marketing plan. The current marketing 

organization is disconnected; USAES, USACE, and other 

engineering organizations fail to portray supporting marketing 

messages. Websites need to be compatible, information needs 

to be similar, and engineering messages should be consistent 

among all of these sources. Additional efforts should focus 

on researching the most effective modes of communication 

and determining the Regiment’s target audience. With a focus 

on how to market and to whom, the Regiment can proceed to 

produce an effective marketing plan.

The strategic communications work group identified the 

need for a more proactive marketing approach. Local USACE 

offices and other engineer units have been tasked to interact 

with surrounding schools, communities, and youth to promote 

the Regiment. Specifically, the units have been assigned to 

educate local youth about the engineers and to encourage 

young college students to seek an engineering degree. The 

intent of such a proactive plan is to improve the quality of 

engineers that are accessed into the Regiment.

How can we possibly accomplish some of these actions in a 

time of war? This is precisely the right time to do so! (See the 

Chief of Engineers’ “Building the Bench” article on page 10!) 

We are already seeing implementation and progress! Senior 

engineer leaders are visiting our best engineering colleges 

and universities, explaining the opportunities available in the 

Regiment . . . thousands of United States Military Academy 

(USMA) and Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadets 

are being introduced to the branch in a spectacular fashion 

during summer camps . . . videos and promotional materials are 

being developed . . . nearly 70 percent of the officers branching 

engineers commissioned from the West Point class of 2008 had 

engineering degrees (a huge increase from last year) . . . use 

of laptops and a wireless classroom in the Engineer School 

is being piloted this summer . . . coordination to leverage 

sister Service educational courses is ongoing . . . USACE 

commanders are organizing regionally-based communication 

and execution confederations of engineer stakeholders, such 

as Military Academy Liaison Officers, ROTC units, engineer 

units, Recruiting Command, USACE assets, key university 

feeder schools, and public and private organizations and 

stakeholders . . . the flywheel is beginning to turn!

“There is a sense of exhilaration that comes in facing 

head-on the hard truths and saying, ‘We will never give up. 

We will never capitulate. It might take a long time, but we 

will find a way to prevail.’”

The findings and recommendations in this article 

are not all-inclusive of the 

work that was done by the 

ELTC and ENFORCE work 

groups. To tie together all 

of the recommendations and 

findings, we will publish 

a “Regimental Campaign 

Plan” that will become a 

18 Engineer April-June 2008
touchstone document for engineers for the next 5-10 years. 

On 8 and 9 July, a Council of Colonels met at Fort Leonard 

Wood to prioritize and direct tasks to all members of the 

Regiment. We will continue to use the Engineer Professional 

Bulletin; The Engineer Blast; “Building Great Engineers,” 

located at the Engineer School Knowledge Network on Army 

Knowledge Online (AKO); and e-mails to continue to update 

the entire Regiment on our progress to Build Great Engineers 

for the future! 

Captain Mohr is the action officer for the Building Great Engineers 

project at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New 

York, where he received a bachelor’s in civil engineering in 2004.

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.

Colonel Tipton is the Assistant Commandant, United States Army 

Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Previously the 

Maneuver Support Center Director of Training, he holds a master’s 

in civil engineering from Montana State University and a master’s 

in strategic studies from the Army War College and is a licensed 

professional engineer in Virginia.

Colonel Haight is the Director, Office of the Chief of Engineers, 

on the Army Staff. Previous assignments include C7 Engineer, 

Multinational Corps-Iraq, and Commander, Engineer Brigade,

1st Infantry Division. He holds a master’s in mechanical engineering 

from the University of Washington and a master’s in strategic studies 

from the Army War College and is a licenced professional engineer 

in Virginia.

Lieutenant Colonel Anderson is the Plans Chief in the Office 

of the Chief of Engineers in the Pentagon. He has had a variety 

of assignments, to include assistant division engineer in the

1st Armored Division; mathematics instructor at West Point; 

battalion and brigade executive officer in Giessen, Germany; and 

company commander in Fort Carson, Colorado.

Mr. Tupper serves as a liaison from the University of Missouri 

to Fort Leonard Wood, working issues in education, research, and 

economic development. He retired from the Army in 2003 after 

serving in various engineer units and staffs, to include a stint as a 

professor of military science (ROTC) and as an associate professor 

of electrical engineering at the United States Military Academy. He 

holds a master’s in electrical engineering from the Georgia Institute 

of Technology and is a licensed professional engineer.

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. 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.

Endnote

1 Good to Great by Jim C. Collins, Harper Business: New 

York, 2001.

April-June 2008 Engineer 19

to make sure people know what we do and what opportunities 

exist within the Regiment. The USACE New Orleans District 

is leading the way and setting a high bar in this arena. In fact, 

we are using some innovative ways to build the bench in the 

“Big Easy,” such as networking and building relationships 

with faculty at universities, deans of engineering schools, 

and professors who are tapped into the skills and strengths 

of particular students. Of course, this will supplement—not 

replace—our traditional recruiting at career fairs and other 

direct-to-student efforts.

We are going to target our recruiting more appropriately to 

the specific competencies we will need in the future, as a result 

of our “gap” analysis. So we’ll seek out specific skills, such 

as geotechnical or geographic information systems (GIS), and 

reach out to students and institutions with those strengths. 

To be Built to Last, we need people who are masters in their 

trade, as well as all-round skilled “pentathletes.”

This is the beginning of getting the Good to Great “flywheel” 

in motion. We are just getting it started and, as we continue to 

focus on improving our technical competency and building a 

bench of disciplined people, we will gain momentum.

Thanks for joining in this critical “walnut.” When we look 

back four or five years from now and see a Regiment Built to 

Last, you will have left an indelible print on our profession 

and our nation!

Lieutenant General Van Antwerp is the 52d Chief of Engineers 

and Commander of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. 

Previous assignments include Commanding General, United 

States Army Accessions Command and Deputy Commanding 

General for Initial Military Training at Fort Monroe, Virginia; 

Commanding General, United States Army Maneuver Support 

Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and Commandant, 

United States Army Engineer School; United States Army Corps 

of Engineers Los Angeles District; the United States Army Division, South Atlantic, Atlanta, Georgia; and the 326th Engineer 

Battalion, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

Endnotes

1 Good to Great by Jim C. Collins, Harper Business: New 

York, 2001.

2 I actually do have a jar full of walnuts and rice. The walnuts 

represent priorities, and the rice represents all the other stuff—the 

ankle-biters that get in the way all the time. If you dump out the 

jar, and try to put everything back in, you have to put the walnuts 

in first; if you put the rice in, and then try to add the walnuts, they 

won’t fit and you’ll end up breaking some walnuts when you try 

to close the jar. If you put the walnuts in first, then add the rice, 

the rice will work itself around all the walnuts and fit in where it 

can. The message being—tackle the priorities first, and then fit all 

the other stuff in as you can.

3 Built to Last by Jim C. Collins and Jerry I. Porras, Harper 

Business: New York, 1994, 1997.

(“Building the Bench,” continued from page 10)
20 Engineer April-June 2008

The Engineer Leader Technical Competency (ELTC) 

Strategy must embody a holistic approach that accesses, 

develops, employs, and retains talent matched to engineer objectives. Military career paths, with their associated rank 

structure and progression, inhibit entry of talent from the civilian 

sector. Consequently, the Engineer Regiment can only develop, 

employ, and retain the talent that it initially accesses.

Where the Regiment lacks scope to selectively retain and advance talented leaders, it will incur higher costs for leader development and risks associated with unfit talent. Perhaps even more 

central to the ELTC Strategy, efforts must begin to match competency requirements to individual competencies. In so doing, the 

Regiment will move beyond assignment management and into 

talent management. By placing the right leader in the right job 

at the right time, the Regiment stands to reap benefits not only 

with operational efficiency but also in its ability to access, retain, 

and develop talent. Thus, accessions, development, employment, 

and retention of talent are interdependent processes that must be 

addressed holistically. 

To create an ELTC Strategy, senior leaders must agree upon 

their strategic objectives. A review of recent officer accessions 

guidance reveals that only quantities were discussed; guidance 

omitted accession objectives with regard to officer competencies, 

abilities, or aptitudes. Even though objectives for such qualities 

are not explicitly set out in official accessions policy, they have 

gained increased prominence as leader development imperatives. 

More specifically, senior leaders have expressed qualitative requirements using such terms as “pentathlete” or “adaptive” leaders. The originators of the pentathlete term envisioned leaders 

who embody a range of competencies beyond those narrowly associated with combat operations. 

By expressing the need for leaders with increased technical competencies and aptitudes for rapid learning and adaptation, senior leaders are in fact articulating the objectives for an 

ELTC Strategy. In essence, those who have skills beyond traditional combat objectives—the ability to quickly discern patterns 

of activity within new situations and conceive alternatives to 

address situations for which they have never been specifically 

trained—are exactly the demands of senior Army leaders. To allow requirements for specific competencies to evolve over time, 

we simply refer to these requisite skills as “talent.”

Central to underpinning an all-encompassing strategy, the 

Regiment must build adaptability into its talent management 

organizations and processes. In other words, rather than relying solely upon a leader’s capacity to adapt, the Regiment must 

embrace organizational adaptability. Such an approach provides 

greater depth in technical engineering competencies. For example, a strategy with the objective of producing adaptive individuals without an adaptable organizational structure is likely to result 

in personnel who are an inch deep and a mile wide. Few individuals have the aptitude to achieve expertise in multiple fields. 

However, by allowing engineers to specialize in a few areas of 

expertise and by building adaptable organizations that can employ the right talent to the right job at the right time, the Regiment 

can achieve a pentathlete capability but with much greater depth 

in competencies. 

This is not to say that the Army does not also need adaptable leaders. Rather, the object of the ELTC Strategy should be a 

distribution of talent and a management system that can employ 

talent effectively.

Specifically for the officer corps, a focus on talent management reinforces development and retention programs in at least 

two ways. First, developmental assignments improve officer competencies gained during precommissioning education, postcommissioning institutional training, and advanced civil education. 

Second, achieving a close match between officer interests, competencies, and utilization directly improves officer career satisfaction and success, which sets the conditions to garner extended 

service among high-potential leaders. Thus, increased capacity 

to employ officer talent should serve as the capstone to access, 

develop, and retain high-potential, high-performance leaders.

Given the foregoing, an effective ELTC Strategy will recognize the interdependency of accessing, developing, employing, 

and retaining talent. The strategy must acknowledge the need for 

organizational adaptability to foster and benefit from depth in 

leaders’ competencies. Finally, to make the strategy timeless, it 

must allow the attributes that define talent over time. In so doing, 

the strategy will leverage resources, policies, and organizations 

to achieve the objective of employing the right talent in the right 

job at the right time to meet future requirements. 

Colonel Wardynski is the director of the Office of Economic 

and Manpower Analysis at the United States Military Academy at 

West Point, New York.. He holds a doctorate in public policy from 

the Frederick S. Pardee RAND Graduate School.

Major Lyle is deputy director of the Office of Economic and 

Manpower Analysis. He holds a doctorate in economics from the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Captain Mohr is the action officer for the Building Great Engineers project at the United States Military Academy at West Point, 

New York, where he received a bachelor’s in civil engineering in 

2004.

By Colonel E. Casey Wardynski, Major David S. Lyle, and Captain William E. Mohr

Developing an Engineer Leader Technical

Accessing, Developing, Employing, and Retaining Talent

Competency Strategy:
April-June 2008 Engineer 21

The future engineer force and modularity have increased the technical span of control for combat effects engineer 

battalions. “Span of control” refers to the 

number of subordinate units a commander 

must command and control; at the battalion 

level, that is normally three to five companies of similar capabilities. Major William 

G. Pierce, an engineer officer, wrote a monograph on operational span of control in 1991 

while a student at the Command and General 

Staff College. He concluded that the military 

education system is the primary factor that 

will enable a commander to expand his span 

of control. This holds true today as the Regiment organizes various capabilities into its 

existing battalions and brigades. 

Technical Span of Control

Aformer commander of the 29th Engineer Battalion 

(Topographic) coined the phrase “technical span of 

control” to explain the structure of the unit, which 

was topographic in name only: the battalion had a dive 

detachment, a transportation company, a topographic company, and a topographic planning and control element. The 

success of the unit truly depended on the background of leaders entering the unit and their ability to broaden their horizons by understanding the capabilities of the units through 

the study of doctrine and operational experience gained while 

assigned to the battalion. 

The key question to examine as the Regiment transforms 

is how it will prepare future battalion and brigade commanders to effectively lead with the increased technical span of 

control. Currently, there is no integrated training and education plan—or even a suggested career path—for future 

leaders to follow to strengthen their skill sets. Moreover, 

the current debate on the technical proficiency of engineer

leaders suggests that the emphasis on a combat-oriented 

mentality has contributed to a decline in skills. That may 

explain part of the decline, but the increased technical span 

of control within combat effects battalions, with additional

companies and detachments assigned to battalion flagpoles, 

has increased the demand for technical competency at all 

levels. If the Regiment fails to address this issue, the image of 

the Regiment could slowly erode to the point where “Essayons” is merely a catchphrase instead of our sacred creed. By 

taking some immediate steps, the Regiment can improve the 

ability of its leaders to harness their technical span of control 

and succeed in the engineering challenges ahead.

Training Junior Leaders

The 65th Engineer Battalion (Combat Effects) can be 

used to illustrate the issues associated with technical span of control because the battalion covers the 

combat, general, and geospatial engineering spectrums. Also, 

I can expound on the issue based on personal experience and 

empirical evidence. The battalion consists of a headquarters 

company, a forward support company, a geospatial planning 

cell, a dive detachment, a topographic company, an engineer support company, a clearance company, and an attached 

By Major Jared L. Ware

Engineers from the 65th Engineer Battalion conduct geospatial analysis 

in a field environment.
22 Engineer April-June 2008

chemical company. The battalion 

will also activate a sapper company and an explosive hazards team 

in the near future. Understanding 

that it is difficult for one person to 

master all of these capabilities in a 

short amount of time, the battalion 

has focused on training its junior 

leaders on the various engineer capabilities. The goal is to introduce 

them to the battalion’s capabilities, offer them the opportunity to 

serve in more than one type of unit, 

and expand their overall technical 

proficiency. 

To address the increased technical span of control, the battalion 

has implemented an officer development and certification program 

to address technical proficiency at 

the junior officer level. This program is a series of 65 events that 

cover basic officer tasks as well as tasks related to combat, 

construction, and geospatial engineering. The battalion commander also closely manages the officer slate to ensure that 

junior officers, including dive-qualified officers, can serve 

in more than one type of engineer unit. Field grade officers 

have been selected based on a mixed background in combat, 

construction, geospatial and/or general engineering to ensure 

that no “single-tracked” mentality degrades the battalion’s 

diverse training plan. The battalion’s emphasis on training 

and education, as well as its ability to bring in multifaceted 

leadership, has significantly improved its technical span of 

control. Moreover, it has improved the commander’s ability 

to command, control, and direct engineer capabilities with 

greater confidence in mission success. The ability to increase 

the technical span of control is directly proportional to the 

training and education of key leaders in multiple facets of full 

spectrum engineering.

A doctrinal or organizational modification cannot completely alleviate the span of control gap, particularly with the 

modular engineer force requirements. The answer lies in the 

training and education of field grade and company grade officers, since they are the major decision-makers in training 

and equipping their units. Junior leaders must understand the 

limitations of the battalion headquarters and strive to become 

the technical experts in their respective units. The more technically qualified the leaders at the company level, the further 

the battalion commander can expand the battalion’s technical 

span of control. The inverse is also true; the less technically 

competent the junior leaders, the smaller the technical span of 

control at the battalion level. 

Learning engineer organizations and their capabilities requires continuous training, education, and operational experience, which will allow the Regiment to prepare its future 

leaders to feel comfortable with an 

increased technical span of control. 

Future Emphasis

Continuous Learning. Expand distance learning training and mandate its completion as an educational requirement. 

The Army’s sister Services require 

engineers to obtain professional engineer designations. At a minimum, 

the Army could have engineer officers watch a few training videos

online during the Basic Officer 

Leadership Course, Engineer Captains

Career Course, or intermediate-level

learning courses and document their 

Sappers from the 65th Engineer Battalion conduct demolition operations at 

Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawaii.

Soldiers from the 71st Chemical Company generate smoke at Pohakuloa 

Training Area.
April-June 2008

xx Engineer

completion with a certificate. Review the current engineer 

force structure and immediately address all significant leader 

training shortfalls with a more robust educational package.

Expand Unit Nomenclature. Keep the headquarters table of organization and equipment structure, but expand the 

nomenclature, naming battalions according to their missions 

and subordinate capabilities, such as combat, construction, 

or prime power. The “effects” title is confusing, especially 

when there are dive teams and geospatial planning cells in 

the same battalion structure. Review the naming conventions and get feedback from the field on whether or not the 

current structures enhance or detract from the Regiment’s 

image.

Feedback From Engineer Leaders. Examination of the 

careers of current active duty engineer brigade commanders shows that they served key leadership and staff assignment time in either combat or construction units only. Each 

brigade now has at least one combat effects battalion and 

one construction effects battalion, as well as other companies and detachments that cover the gamut of full spectrum 

engineering. Perhaps these leaders could share their insight on 

topics such as, “If I had trained in this area, or had served in 

this type of unit, or had received this type of education, then it 

would have given me a wider technical span of control.” 

Good venues to share ideas could be—

The Engineer Portal (<https://www.mwu.army.mil/portal/ 

eng/index.php>)

“The Engineer Blast,” published by the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers. For past issues, login to Army 

Knowledge Online (AKO) and type in <https://www. 

us.army.mil/suite/folder/1066848>.

The Engineer Leader Technical Competency site at AKO. 

To gain access to the site, e-mail Captain Mark Conrad at 

<mark.aaron.conrad@us.army.mil>.

Major Ware is the executive officer of the 65th Engineer 

Battalion (Combat Effects). He has served in the United 

States and overseas in a variety of engineer assignments. His 

e-mail address is <jared.ware@us.army.mil>.

■

■

■

Engineer is a professional-development bulletin designed 

to provide a forum for exchanging information and ideas 

within the Army engineer community. We include articles by 

and about officers, enlisted Soldiers, warrant officers, Department of the Army civilian employees, and others. Writers may 

discuss training, current operations and exercises, doctrine, 

equipment, history, personal viewpoints, or other areas of 

general interest to engineers. Articles may share good ideas 

and lessons learned or explore better ways of doing things.

Articles should be concise, straightforward, and in the

active voice. If they contain attributable information or quotations not referenced in the text, provide appropriate endnotes. Text length should not exceed 2,000 words (about eight

double-spaced pages). Shorter after-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 nongovernment or foreign individuals and organizations.

We cannot guarantee that we will publish all submitted 

articles. They are accepted for publication only after thorough 

review. If we plan to use your article in an upcoming issue, we 

will notify you. Therefore it is important to keep us informed 

of changes in your e-mail address and telephone number. All 

articles accepted for publication are subject to grammatical 

and structural changes as well as editing for style.

Send submissions by e-mail to <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

Engineer 23
As the Engineer Regiment considers how best to attract and retain the future leadership corps it needs— 

commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers, 

and civilians—for this new era of persistent conflict, there are 

three factors with major implications for the Regiment’s current efforts.

Implications for the Present

Profession vs. Bureaucracy. First, the Army that the 

Engineer Regiment serves is always precariously balanced between being a trusted vocational profession 

and being just another governmental bureaucracy. For many 

valid reasons, it is incredibly important which culture—profession or bureaucracy—is predominant within the Army and 

within the unit climate of each of its subelements. Among the 

most important reasons for the Army to be a profession are the 

following:

There is no history of a bureaucracy ever creating the

expert knowledge and practice of modern warfare. If 

America is to have effecive land forces, the United States 

Army must be, and function as, a profession­—not as a

bureaucracy.

Without a professional culture and its inherent ethos, the 

essential trust relationship between the Army and the 

American people it serves—one based on the Army’s expert capabilities and the effectiveness of their use—will be 

ruptured and at a potentially terrible price to both. After

Abu Ghraib and similar incidents, some of that trust evaporated and only now is being regained.

Role of Army Leaders. The most significant factor 

in the resolution of this inherent tension between the two 

types of armies—professional or bureaucratic—will be the 

role played by Army leaders of all stripes. Day by day they 

will determine by their decisions, their presence, and their 

modeling whether America’s sons and daughters serve in the 

satisfying, fulfilling role of “a professional and an expert” (as 

the Soldier’s Creed states) or whether they will come to see 

themselves as merely time-serving government bureaucrats 

with no influence. Stated another way, the climate within any 

unit reflects accurately both the competence and the character 

■

■

of the leadership of that unit. As they have done in the past, 

Soldiers will rightly continue to ask their leaders, including 

their Engineer Regiment leaders, “How can I be a professional 

if there is no profession?”

Development of Moral Character. The Army is generally 

very good at developing the tactical and technical competencies 

of its leaders; training in military skills has long been a strong 

suit among the Army’s core developmental routines. But it is 

equally clear that the Army is not nearly so good at developing, 

or more accurately, facilitating the development of the moral 

character of its leaders. Fortunately, the experiences of the 

Army in Iraq and Afghanistan have now renewed interest 

in a broader range of the human dimensions of such warfare 

and of the demands it places on Army leaders. To develop 

Army leaders for the future will take more than education 

and training. It will also take inspiration—individual moral 

awareness and development of a type that will allow leaders 

fully to accept and support the profession’s ethic by “living

it 24/7.”

Implications for the Future

The issue this leads to is the moral character of Army 

leaders and the Army’s ability to understand the leader’s fighting spirit, the individual spirituality that so 

strongly informs individual character. This is not a new subject for the Army. Many older Soldiers will remember that for 

the post-World War II generation, General George C. Marshall spoke matter-of-factly about the common understanding 

within the Army: “The Soldier’s heart, the Soldier’s spirit, the 

Soldier’s soul are everything. Unless the Soldier’s soul sustains him, he cannot be relied on and he will fail himself, his 

commander, and his country in the end. It is not enough to 

fight. It is the spirit that wins the victory.” 1

How then does the Army, and those involved in the effort 

to rethink the development of leaders within the Engineer 

Regiment, understand and discuss the inspiration of individual 

leaders and its influence on their moral character and thus on 

their behavior, particularly in combat? The Army’s approach 

centers on the Warrior Ethos, which has been promulgated as 

a four-sentence portion of the Soldier’s Creed: “I will always 

By Dr. Don M. Snider

The Army Profession, the Engineer Regiment, 

and the Character of Their Leaders

24 Engineer April-June 2008
place the mission first. I will never accept defeat. I will 

never quit. I will never leave a fallen comrade.” However, 

while concluding that it is crucial for “all Soldiers [to] truly 

understand and embody this Warrior Ethos,” the doctrine 

is almost silent on how such an element of character is 

embodied, developed, and sustained. There is no language, 

no developmental model, no suggested pedagogy. Even 

more unhelpfully, the doctrine states, “While individuals are 

responsible for their own character development, leaders are 

responsible for encouraging, supporting, and assessing the 

efforts of their people.” 2

Competence vs. Character

So how are Army leaders to fulfill this critical leadership 

role if the Army dismisses character development as 

the responsibility of the individual?

For the engineer leadership working on the Building Great 

Engineers project, there are two suggestions. The first is to 

update the Engineer Regiment’s (and thus the profession’s) 

knowledge of human development with language and developmental models that elevate the understanding and discussion of human spirituality to where it belongs and where it 

exists in current university research programs—to a position 

above religion. (For example, see <http://www.spirituality.

ucla.edu/>.) Simply stated, this means that the Regiment understands and accepts that the spirituality of its Soldiers and 

leaders—their inspiration and worldview that shape character—can be informed by many sources, only one of which 

might, at the choice of the individual, be religion.

The second suggestion is that the leadership adopt 

the position that the Regiment’s institutional role and 

responsibility in the realm of the Soldier’s inspiration is to 

facilitate the individual’s search for the moral meaning that 

defines a leader’s personal character. This means moving 

beyond the Army’s current “we don’t do that” approach to the 

character development of its Soldiers and leaders. Research 

from Iraq continues to show that authentically moral leaders 

better earn their followers’ trust and thus possess a greater 

ability to exercise high-impact leadership. In a stateside 

setting, this means producing leaders who are better able to 

mentor Soldiers and junior leaders, and thus the developmental 

process goes on and on.

This is not to suggest that the Regiment decrease its 

emphasis on developing the tactical competence of its Soldiers 

or leaders. However, the Regiment should restore appropriate 

balance to the development of both their competence and 

character. Both remain, as operations in Afghanistan and Iraq 

have repeatedly shown, essential to Soldiers and leaders in 

effective fighting forces. 

Summary

I

n summary, the result of implementing these two suggestions over time should be two very salutary developmental outcomes for the Engineer Regiment and for the 

Army profession. Soldiers and leaders will be better grounded 

individually in what they believe and in their strength of will 

to act on those beliefs. And the dissonance between what 

they believe and hold dear and what the institution declares is 

“right”—according to the professional military ethic embodied in traditions such as the seven Army Values—would be 

reduced. Both outcomes move the Regiment and the profession in the direction of a more cohesive and effective fighting 

force. 

Dr. Snider served three combat tours as an infantryman in 

Vietnam and commanded a battalion in the 7th Infantry Division. In his final active duty position, he served in the Office of 

the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. He retired from the Army 

in 1990 and in 1998 was appointed to the civilian faculty at 

the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, 

where he is now a professor emeritus. He holds a doctorate 

in public policy from the University of Maryland and masters’ 

in economics and public policy from the University of Wisconsin. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations 

and serves on the executive committee of the Inter-University 

Seminar on Armed Forces and Society. 

Endnotes

1

 H.A. DeWeerd (Editor) “Selected Speeches and Statements 

of General of the Army George Catlett Marshall,” The Infantry 

Journal, 1945.

2

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

“Research from Iraq continues to show that authentically 

moral leaders better earn their followers’ trust and thus 

possess a greater ability to exercise high-impact leadership.”

April-June 2008 Engineer 25
The ENFORCE 2008 Engineer Regimental Remembrance Ceremony formally paid tribute to the 37 Sappers who 

had fallen since ENFORCE 2007—from 23 May 2007 through 9 May 2008. Brigadier General Gregg F. Martin, 

Commandant of the United States Army Engineer School, spoke about the sacrifice our Sappers are making for our 

country, as well as for countries all over the world. He also emphasized the importance of keeping our Wounded Warriors in 

the Army, employing them wherever they are able to serve.

A Roll Call of the 37 Sappers was read by Sergeant First Class Anthony Snincsak, Engineer Advanced Noncommissioned 

Officer Course, and Sergeant Major H. Timothy Williams III, Engineer Personnel Proponency Office.

Regimental Command Sergeant Major Robert J. Wells paid the following tribute to the fallen Sappers:

There is no amount of honor we can bestow that one could say is “enough” when speaking of such sacrifice. It is 

our challenge as a group, and indeed as a country, to ensure that our Soldiers are not forgotten. These Soldiers were 

someone’s battle buddy, fighting alongside their comrades, fully knowing the dangers they faced when going outside 

the wire. Most were young, never to know the happiness of falling in love or the joy of watching their children grow 

into young adults. But we will not despair. These Soldiers have given us the greatest of gifts. Our hearts will hold their 

memories dear. From this day forth, the way in which we live our lives will reflect that others have sacrificed so much. 

We will humbly work to preserve the legacy of sacrifice, bravery, and selflessness that these Soldiers have displayed. To 

the Families of our fallen, I cannot adequately express how honored we are to have known your Soldier. Although we 

are deeply affected by this loss, our suffering pales in comparison to the anguish you feel. Our collective hearts go out to 

you, this day and into the future.

The fellow Soldiers of these brave engineers have begun preserving this legacy of bravery by continuing to fight. This 

is especially hard to do. You see, they not only lived and fought alongside these brave engineers; they also carried them 

tenderly from the battlefield. Their emotions range from quiet humility to unbridled rage, tearful remembrance to quiet 

determination. Through all this, they persevere; they honor their brothers. Our thoughts and prayers are with them as 

they valiantly continue the mission. In a sense, this ceremony is a celebration—a celebration of life. We would do well in 

this celebration by finding some measure of comfort in the words heard today.

I know these engineers would want it no other way. The memory of these brave Soldiers brings a quiet determination 

to continue to live, continue to make a difference, continue to fight to make others free.

They did. We will.

26 Engineer April-June 2008

Engineer Regimenta 

SGT William E. Allmon

SGT Brian D. Ardron

MSG Scott R. Ball

SPC Richard B. Burress

PFC Adam J. Chitjian

SGT Cory L. Clark

SPC Michael W. Davis

SGT Dayne D.Dhanoolal

SPC William T. Dix

SPC Michael K. Frank

SPC Adam G. Herold

SFC Rocky H. Herrera

SGT Shawn F. Hill

SGT Bryce D. Howard

SPC Alun R. Howells

MSG Julian Ingles-Rios

SGT Samuel E. Kelsey

CPL Johnathan A. Lahmann

SPC David E. Lambert

PFC Robert A. Liggett

PFC Adam L. Marion

CPT Timothy I. McGovern

SSG Jeremiah E. McNeal

SGT John W. Mele II

PFC Joshua S. Modgling

SGT John C. Osmolski

SGT Joseph A. Richard III

SGT Bradley J. Skelton

SPC Erich S. Smallwood

PFC Tyler J. Smith

SGT Timothy M. Smith

SPC Brandon W. Smitherman

CPT Joshua E. Steele

SPC Matthew F. Straughter

SSG Shannon V. Weaver

CPL Kory D. Wiens

SFC William A. Zapfe

Rememance Ceremony
April-June 2008 Engineer 27

Each year, we recognize the best engineer company, 

lieutenant, noncommissioned officer, and enlisted 

Soldier—in each of the components—for outstanding 

contributions and service to our Regiment and Army. Every 

engineer unit in the Regiment can submit the name and 

achievements of its best of the best to compete in these 

distinguished award competitions. Only the finest engineer 

companies and Soldiers are selected as recipients of these 

awards. The Soldiers will carry throughout their careers the 

distinction and recognition of being the Engineer Branch’s 

best and brightest Soldiers and leaders. Following are the 

results of the 2007 selection boards for the Itschner and 

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Awards, the 

Sturgis Medal, and the Van Autreve Award:

Active Army

Itschner Award: United States Army Pacific (USARPAC) 

nominee, 66th Engineer Company, Stryker Brigade Combat 

Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. 

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Award: 

United States Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) nominee, 

First Lieutenant Celio Biering, Bravo Company, 864th 

Engineer Battalion (Heavy), Fort Lewis, Washington. 

Sturgis Medal: United States Army Europe (USAREUR) 

nominee, Sergeant First Class Travis Crow, Alpha Company, 

173d Special Troops Battalion, Bamberg, Germany. 

Van Autreve Award: USARPAC nominee, Specialist 

Christopher Slack, Alpha Company, 3d Brigade Special Troops 

Battalion, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.

United States Army Reserve

Itschner Award: No nomination.

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Award:

No nomination.

Sturgis Medal: Sergeant First Class Martin G. Durst, 

401st Engineer Company (Multirole Bridge), 489th Engineer 

Battalion, Oklahoma Army Reserves, Enid, Oklahoma.

Van Autreve Award: No nomination.

Army National Guard

Itschner Award: 133d Engineer Company, 94th Troop 

Command, Wyoming Army National Guard, Laramie, 

Wyoming.

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly): First 

Lieutenant Todd D. Hotard, 225th Engineer Brigade, 

Louisiana Army National Guard, Pineville, Louisiana.

Sturgis Medal: Staff Sergeant Richard R. Hofstad,

1st Combined Arms Battalion, Minnesota Army National 

Guard, Brainerd, Minnesota.

Van Autreve Award: No nomination.

All of the nominees represented their major commands 

with the highest professionalism and dedication to the 

Engineer Corps’s vision and deserve our highest praise. The 

award recipients were recognized on 8 May at ENFORCE 

2008 at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Regimental Awards

Photo by Multimedia Visual Information Service Center
28 Engineer April-June 2008

By Lieutenant Colonel Scott C. Johnson

1-3 Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 

1st Brigade Combat Team, 3d Infantry Division, 

October 2006

One of the most unique and challenging battalion 

commands in the Army is the brigade special troops 

battalion (BSTB). Unlike most commands, the BSTB 

is composed of a variety of units with vastly different primary 

missions and branch-specific equipment and capabilities. 

The Army would be hard-pressed to find officers with the 

background to fully understand how to effectively train and 

employ engineer, military intelligence, signal, chemical, and 

military police assets. 

Due to the diversity of the battalion, every commander 

will struggle with establishing teamwork and mission-focus 

within the BSTB, but it is absolutely critical to success. 

Whether you call it a vision or the overarching mission of 

the BSTB, the commander must ensure that every Soldier in 

the unit understands that the primary mission of the battalion 

is to provide enablers that enhance the brigade’s ability to 

successfully plan, prepare, and execute operations. Success 

requires teamwork and a single-minded focus on enabling the 

brigade’s mission.

The leaders and Soldiers in the battalion must be prepared 

to support the brigade when and where they are needed. 

The BSTB’s responsibilities, in many cases, span the entire 

brigade combat team (BCT) area of operations. To achieve 

success, leaders at all levels must be adaptable, and the 

subordinate units must understand both their primary mission 

and the specified missions of the battalion. 

The primary mission of the BSTB is to provide command, 

control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) support to the brigade with its organic assets and to execute other 

sustainment and support missions for the brigade, 

the brigade headquarters, and other supported units. The latter can include engineer units, civil affairs t e a m s , 

psychological operations 
April-June 2008 Engineer 29

Another unique aspect to some, but not all, BSTBs is the 

control of the BCT headquarters company. In some BCTs, 

the headquarters and headquarters company (HHC) BCT is 

a completely separate organization, and in others it is taskorganized under the BSTB. When the HHC BCT is organized 

under the BSTB, a common understanding between the 

deputy commanding officer/executive officer (DCO/XO) 

and the BSTB must be established to ensure that everyone is 

working toward a common goal. 

An effective technique in this case is to develop a 

memorandum of agreement that separates and assigns 

responsibilities for individual training and readiness 

requirements, company logistics and administration, and BCT 

staff functions, management, and training. The BCT staff is 

the purview of the BCT DCO/XO, and training, maintenance, 

and sustainment are command issues that the BCT staff must 

support. Success is predicated on mutual understanding and 

a company commander who can bridge the gap between the 

battalion and the brigade staff’s requirements. 

During combat operations, the integration of BSTB 

resources with the BCT staff has the potential to blur the 

lines of command. The brigade engineer, intelligence, and 

communications staff sections are responsible for planning 

and coordinating support for the brigade. Elements from 

signal and military intelligence companies enable the brigade 

staff to plan, manage, and coordinate intelligence collection 

and analysis and communication network management. The 

BSTB, however, is responsible for mission preparation and 

execution. 

Successful execution is predicated on establishing the 

boundaries between the brigade staff and the BSTB. To 

ensure common understanding and situational awareness, 

missions for the company’s resources must flow through 

the BCT operations and training (S3) section via the orders 

process. Direct coordination between the company and the 

BCT staff should be allowed and encouraged, but additional 

coordination with the battalion and tasking authority must 

remain in command channels. 

Tactical Unmanned Aircraft Systems (TUAS) operations 

provide a good example of how this process can work. The 

BCT intelligence (S2) section publishes the intelligence, 

surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) matrix in coordination 

with the units requiring support. The initial ISR matrix should 

be published in a BCT fragmentary order (FRAGO) and in 

a BSTB FRAGO in an adequate amount of time to allow 

for planning at all levels. The military intelligence company 

has the ability to conduct parallel planning through the BCT 

FRAGO (essentially a warning order). Any technical or crew 

rest issues are worked out between the BSTB and the BCT S2 

before the BSTB issues its order.

All the mission planning and preparation to successfully 

execute TUAS operations is the responsibility of the military 

intelligence company and the BSTB. Once the TUAS is 

airborne, tactical control of the aircraft may revert to the 

(PSYOPS) teams, elements of the joint forces, and any other 

unit augmenting the brigade or the brigade headquarters.

The specified or overarching mission of the BSTB during 

combat can vary based on the brigade’s requirements. As 

a command and control headquarters, the BSTB’s primary 

focus must remain on providing support to the brigade, but 

it also has the ability to command and control a functional 

mission or, with some inherent limitations, area of operations. 

The specified missions for BSTBs have varied greatly over 

the last few years. 

Many of the BSTBs had excess engineer officers and 

noncommissioned officers (NCOs) when they were formed. 

As a result, many were assigned missions associated 

with engineer operations in support of the BCT—civil or 

military. During recent deployments to support Operation 

Iraqi Freedom, BSTBs have been responsible for 

functional area missions in support of the BCT, such as 

Iraqi army military transition teams (MiTTs), Iraqi police 

transition teams (PTTs), and civil-military operations. 

They have also been given the mission to execute base 

camp operations and security.
30 Engineer April-June 2008

branches and NCOs with a broad spectrum of MOSs fill 

the ranks of the BSTB. At any time, these Soldiers must 

understand the capabilities of both their own companies and 

the mission and functions of the battalion as a whole. This will 

enable the companies and units within the BSTB to achieve a 

certain synergy that enhances the overall effectiveness of the 

battalion and enable leaders to develop techniques to enhance 

the mutual support required to ensure their success. 

As with any organization, it is a challenge to develop 

adaptable and innovative leaders, but the BSTB absolutely 

requires them. It requires a constant top-driven focus on 

how the unit and its diverse elements can improve their 

effectiveness and efficiency. It requires problem solvers who 

can develop solutions with limited resources. It requires a team 

mentality among the officers in the battalion and teamwork 

between what have historically been stovepipe organizations. 

It requires leaders to encourage and nurture junior leaders and 

Soldiers to develop workable solutions and implement them.

Commanders, staff officers, and senior NCOs assigned to 

the BSTB must be willing to expand their experience base, 

learn a variety of new skills and technical knowledge, and 

grow both professionally and personally. The success of the 

Army’s BCTs requires dedicated and innovative leaders who 

are focused on achieving results. When approached with an 

open mind and willingness to place the mission of the brigade 

first, BSTB command is a personally and professionally 

rewarding experience that demands the best. 

Lieutenant Colonel Johnson, United States Army Corps 

of Engineers, commanded the 1-3 Brigade Special Troops 

Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3d Infantry Division, 

from 20 June 2006 to 17 June 2008. He is currently assigned 

as the United States Army Engineer School Chief of Staff.

supported unit and the brigade. A TUAS liaison officer can 

synchronize targets, in-flight diversions, and time on station in 

coordination with the BCT S2 and S3 battle captains directly. 

By operating in this manner, both the military intelligence 

company and the BSTB can monitor execution while 

providing maximum flexibility. When the TUAS returns to 

base or lands, full control of the asset again returns to the 

military intelligence company and the BSTB. 

This cooperative process should also apply to other assets 

in the military intelligence company, the signal company, 

and the chemical and military police platoons when they are 

supporting brigade operations. Depending on the missions 

the chemical and military police platoons are assigned, it is 

possible to keep all coordination and planning at the battalion 

level. When these units aren’t engaged directly in the brigade 

fight, the BSTB has the ability to employ these units in support 

of the battalion’s other missions or to enhance the battalion’s 

execution of other support and security functions. 

Regardless of the mission, the BSTB must have welldisciplined and trained Soldiers and adaptable leaders 

to achieve success. Individual training within the BSTB 

companies and the HHC BCT (if attached) must focus on 

individual expertise—both as a Warrior and in their specialty. 

The goal, as in any command, is to produce Soldiers skilled 

in the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills and imbued with the 

Warrior Ethos. The signal, military intelligence, engineer, 

military police, chemical, infantry, and other Soldiers must 

also be highly proficient in their military occupational 

specialty (MOS)-specific skills at the individual and 

collective levels. 

Training Soldiers on Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills is 

fairly straightforward. In the BSTB, training Soldiers, teams, 

sections, platoons, and companies is as complex and diverse 

as the organization and missions they are expected to perform. 

Developing, resourcing, and executing a training plan that 

creates experts in the broad range of specialties requires 

leaders who fully understand the mission of their unit and the 

training resources available to them. Training is available at 

the installation, through the various schoolhouses, from the 

Department of Defense and other outside agencies, from 

civilian technical institutions, and through other accredited 

venues. Leaders within the BSTB must be innovative in 

searching out training opportunities and resources for their 

Soldiers to ensure that they have the skills and tools to 

succeed.

The officers and NCO leaders within the BSTB must 

be adaptable and multifunctional. Officers from multiple 

“At any time, these Soldiers must understand the 

capabilities of both their own companies and the 

mission and functions of the battalion as a whole.” 
extra edge of competitiveness to the 

event. The NSPFT ended with a 3-mile 

run in interceptor body armor (IBA) and small arms 

protective insert (SAPI) plates.

After the NSPFT, competitors moved to Phase 

II—the Round-Robin—with the first subevent being a

150-meter swim with a poncho raft. As the 24 teams exited 

the water from the poncho raft swim (1 team had dropped 

out due to an injury), competitors were loaded on trucks 

again and sent to six different sites on Fort Leonard Wood to 

continue the event. The additional subevents for the RoundRobin included the stress shoot, grenade range, timbercutting charge, counterforce charge, military operations on 

urbanized terrain (MOUT) breach, and urban challenge. The 

urban challenge, a new subevent this year, tested competitors’ 

ability to shoot, move, and communicate through a simulated 

Iraqi village that consisted of realistic battle sounds, opposing 

forces (OPFOR) in traditional clothing, artillery simulators, 

and burn barrels, as well as live animals.

April-June 2008 Engineer 31

From 6 through 8 May, the best sappers from across 

the Regiment converged at Fort Leonard Wood for 

the 4th Annual Best Sapper Competition. Hosted 

by the 577th Engineer Battalion and Sapper Leader Course 

personnel—and sponsored by the Engineer Regiment—the 

competition gave engineer units across the Army the opportunity to showcase their best Soldiers. The six-phase competition was to determine the best of the best. The Soldiers who 

stood out here are the best in their units, the best in the Regiment, and some of the best in the Army.

Best Sapper 2008

This year’s competition, which was attended by 25 

teams from 19 units across the Army, included ranks 

from private first class through major. The six major 

events were—

Phase I: Nonstandard Physical Fitness Test (NSPFT)

Phase II: Round-Robin

Phase III: X-Mile Road 

March

Phase IV: Sapper Stakes

Phase V: Land Navigation

Phase VI: X-Mile Run

Day One

Phase I—the NSPFT—set 

the tone for the rest of the 

competition, determining who 

was ready and who wasn’t. The 

NSPFT consisted of 5 minutes 

of push-ups, 5 minutes of situps, and 3 minutes of pullups. Only one member of a 

two-man team could perform 

each exercise at a time, but 

team members could switch 

throughout the designated time 

period. The intent was to throw 

a little strategy into the test. 

This made the teams think a 

little more about the event as 

it progressed. It also added an 

■

■

■

■

■

■

Photo by Multimedia Visual Information Service Center

A team from 20th Engineer Brigade conducts the buddy rappel as part of the Best 

Sapper Competition. The buddy rappel was part of the Day Two events on 7 May.

Competition By First Lieutenant James Butler

4th Annual Best Sapper
32 Engineer April-June 2008

2LT Jonathan Browning 20th Engineer Battalion 

SGT Jack Ramthun Fort Hood, Texas

SGT Alexander Mack 20th Engineer Battalion

SGT Glenn Taylor Fort Hood, Texas

SGT Justin Gaiser 20th Engineer Battalion

SPC Patrick Hernandez Fort Hood, Texas

1LT Douglas Droesch 1st Engineer Battalion

1LT Kyle Metzger Fort Riley, Kansas

SSG Karen Antonyan 911th Engineer Company

SGT Matthew Rowsey Fort Belvoir, Virginia

1LT Scott Sann U.S. Army Dive Company

SSG Travis Kaufman Fort Eustis, Virginia

CPT Jason Winkelmann 8th Engineer Battalion

2LT Joel Groves Fort Hood, Texas

SGT Rory Leslie 37th Engineer Battalion

SGT Kurt Nuhfer Fort Bragg, North Carolina

1LT Scott Eshom 502d Engineer Company

1LT Nicholas Soroka Hanau, Germany

1LT Nicholas Fox 11th Engineer Company

1LT Kyle Moore Fort Riley, Kansas

2LT Zachary Taron 3d Brigade Special Troops Battalion

1LT Matthew Davis Schofield Barracks, Hawaii

CPT Christopher George 554th Engineer Battalion

CPT Josh Eggar Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

MAJ Stephen Peterson 1st Engineer Brigade 

CPT Daniel Taphorn Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

SSG Michael Daley 562d Engineer Company 

PFC Ryan Morison Fort Lewis, Washington

1LT Christopher Clare 4th Engineer Battalion

1LT Tyrel Keplinger Fort Carson, Colorado

1LT Kristopher Valenti 4th Engineer Battalion

PFC James Conley Fort Carson, Colorado

1LT Brian Burch 511th Engineer Company

2LT Richard Miller Fort Campbell, Kentucky

1LT Matthew Textor 65th Engineer Battalion

SGT Dustin Hughes Schofield Barracks, Hawaii

SFC Michael Behnkendorf 20th Engineer Brigade 

1LT Shawn Hogan Fort Bragg, North Carolina

SSG Timothy Knight 2-8 Cavalry Division, 1BCT

SGT Joshua Morgan Fort Hood, Texas

1LT Nathan Magee 562d Engineer Company

2LT Kevin Kirby Fort Lewis, Washington

2LT Chris Williammee 72d Engineer Company 

SPC James Wiard Fort Riley, Kansas

1LT Lucas Hansen 72d Engineer Company

SPC Chris Gomez Fort Riley, Kansas

2LT John Davis 562d Engineer Company

SSG Keith Novembre Fort Lewis, Washington

1LT Craig Genung 591st Engineer Company 

SGT Justin Claypool Fort Campbell, Kentucky

2008 Best Sapper Competition Teams

Scoring for the individual events was designed so that no 

one event could outweigh any other. That was done so a team 

wouldn’t completely knock themselves out of the competition 

by doing poorly at one event. The idea was to look at the total 

Soldier, the most well-rounded sappers.

Day Two

At 0200, the 24 teams began Phase III—the X-Mile Road 

March. Designated the “X-Mile” because competitors were 

not told the total distance, the road march served as another 

hurdle in the competition to set the best sappers apart from 

their competitors. By the end of the road march, 5 teams had 

dropped from contention.

At 0730, the remaining 19 teams loaded trucks for their 

dropoff at the Sapper Stakes (Phase IV) events, which would 

add 5 more miles to the 16 the teams had already covered. 

The subevents that made up Sapper Stakes were the weapons 

assembly, foreign mine identification and improvised 

explosive device (IED) report, combat lifesaver (CLS) 

techniques, inert steel cutting, knot tying, Prusik climb and 

buddy rappel, mine detectors, and the obstacle course and 

physical endurance course (PEC). Throughout Sapper Stakes, 

teams moved on foot to each event to total 5 miles.

The biggest subevent of the phase is the Prusik climb and 

buddy rappel. However, due to safety concerns caused by 

lightning, this subevent—as well as the obstacle course and 

First Place CPT Jason Winkelmann 8th Engineer Battalion 

2LT Joel Groves Fort Hood, Texas

Second Place SFC Michael Behnkendorf 20th Engineer Brigade

 1LT Shawn Hogan Fort Bragg, North Carolina

Third Place MAJ Stephen Peterson 1st Engineer Brigade

 CPT Daniel Taphorn Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

2008 Best Sapper Competition Winners 2008 Best Sapper Competition Winners
April-June 2008 Engineer 33

Photo by Multimedia Visual Information Service Center

PEC course—had to be removed from the competition. With 

heavy lightning in the area, it was too risky for Soldiers to 

conduct rappels on the 45-foor Sapper Tower. 

At 2100, the remaining 18 teams began Phase V— 

the Land Navigation Course. The event added another 6 miles 

to the 21 miles the teams had already covered and took them 

right up to 1 hour before the X-Mile Run of Day Three. By 

the completion of the land navigation course, another team 

had dropped out.

Day Three

Phase VI of the competition was the X-Mile Run, and 

only the top 10 teams advanced to this phase. Before starting 

the run, the competitors were unaware of the total distance 

or the mystery events on the route. The mystery events this 

year included carrying items weighing up to 110 pounds 

for various portions of the 9-mile run. By the completion of 

the event, the teams would have covered a total of 32 miles 

during the competition.

Best Sapper 2009

Overall, the three-day event set the standard for the 

Best Sapper competitions in the future. This year’s 

competition was considered to be the best one yet; 

and since it was tied in with ENFORCE, it had a lot more 

visibility than it had in the past. The 2009 competition is 

expected to be even better. The Sapper 

Leader Course cadre are already 

assessing the 2008 competition and 

beginning to plan for next year. 

Although they expect to use some of 

the same types of events in 2009, they 

will definitely make some changes to 

continue to challenge the competitors. 

The cadre encourage teams to begin 

preparing now and register as early as 

possible to make the cut for next year’s 

competition.

First Lieutenant Butler is the 

executive officer of Headquarters 

and Headquarters Company, 577th 

Engineer Battalion, Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri. Commissioned 

through the Army Reserve Officer 

Training Corps, he is a graduate of 

the Sapper Leader Course at Fort 

Leonard Wood and the Ranger School 

at Fort Benning, Georgia. 

A Sapper cadre member inspects knots tied by a Soldier from the 1st Engineer 

Brigade team.

The 554th Engineer 

Battalion team assembles the M9, M16, 

M240, M249, and 

AK-47 weapons.

Photo by Multimedia Visual Information Service Center
34 Engineer April-June 2008

Akey tenet of successful counterinsurgency operations 

is the separation of the enemy from the local population. If insurgents are present in remote towns and 

villages, efforts to foster economic progress 

or build a representative government are 

consistently undermined. With space to operate, however, the local population can receive benefits from reconstruction, and the 

environment can be transformed to the point 

where insurgents can no longer find safe

haven or sympathy. 

Across Afghanistan in 2007, North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) Soldiers pushed 

out into insurgent safe havens, lived among 

the local population, and worked to create 

space for reforms to occur. Nowhere was 

this process more challenging and critical 

than on the rugged Afghanistan–Pakistan 

border. Mountainous terrain, a porous 

border, and safe havens combined to create 

an environment where insurgents enjoyed 

freedom of maneuver within a few kilometers 

of the border. From this area, rocket attacks 

were launched at coalition bases, and villages 

were either abandoned or forced to support insurgent forces. 

Freedom of movement across the Pakistan border facilitated 

the supply and support of insurgent cells throughout eastern 

Combat Outpost Construction in 

Afghanistan’s Paktika Province

By Captain Nicholas O. Melin

HESCO Bastion Concertainer wall
April-June 2008 Engineer 35

and central Afghanistan, and the movement of groups 

of insurgents through critical mountain passes was 

not uncommon. The insurgents attempted to evade 

coalition patrols and move to safe havens and facilities 

hundreds of kilometers inside Afghanistan.

Mission

Team Bulldog from Bravo Company, 864th 

Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy), out 

of Fort Lewis, Washington, received the mission to construct multiple combat outposts (COPs) 

near the Afghanistan–Pakistan border. The purpose 

of these bases was to interdict insurgent movement 

and separate the insurgents from local villages in the 

border region and larger population centers within 

Afghanistan. Partnered with the maneuver task force 

in the area—Task Force Eagle, 1-503d Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 173d Airborne Brigade Combat 

Team—Team Bulldog constructed three COPs during 

combined arms military operations. These COPs allow coalition forces in Paktika Province to control key 

insurgent avenues of movement and to interact more 

closely with the local population. An examination of 

the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) used 

during one COP construction project reveals how 

combat heavy engineer units can integrate with maneuver forces and enhance their capabilities in austere 

areas of operation.

Planning and Preparation

I

n early July 2007, Task Force Pacemaker (864th Engineer Battalion) tasked Bravo Company to partner with 

Task Force Eagle in eastern Paktika Province on a plan to 

construct a COP between a key forward operating base (FOB) 

and the Pakistan border. Increasing rocket attacks on the FOB 

from the border region, as well as a number of border villages 

with interests in economic programs, made coalition presence 

near the border essential. Task Force Eagle planned to conduct a combined arms operation along the border, providing 

sufficient security to execute construction operations. Given 

the enemy threat in the area, the initial occupancy construction for the COP had to be completed within the mission’s 

two-week time limit.

Team Bulldog was task-organized as a combined joint 

team, with infantry Soldiers to augment security at the construction site and Afghan National Army (ANA) engineers to 

work as full partners on the project. Planning for the operation began with Team Bulldog’s attached survey team conducting an initial design—based on information provided 

by the maneuver task force—to order materials. Given the 

lag time for ordering and moving materials from the logistical support areas to an FOB, it was essential to start the 

process as quickly as possible. Also, early designs were executed through daily coordination and discussion with the 

maneuver task force, ensuring that the guard towers, living 

areas, and walls were designed to their specifications. At the 

same time, the construction officer in charge made estimates 

of the contracted equipment and labor support required to 

finish construction within the mission’s time limit. Augmenting military construction equipment with local equipment 

and local workers increased the amount of work accomplished per day and prevented delays due to the breakdown of 

equipment.

Since the location for the COP was at the top of a 2,400-

foot ridgeline covered with trees, it was necessary to conduct 

a topographic survey to determine the amount of usable area 

available and the amount of work that would be required to 

clear the ridge of vegetation. Despite being ambushed by insurgents with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades during the survey, the necessary information was collected. It 

was determined that the shape of the COP, initially designed 

as a triangle, would have to be adjusted to fit the constraints 

of the land. It would take at least two days to clear the ridgeline and shape the terrain to reduce the slope inside the COP 

to less than 5 percent.

Upon completion of the survey, the full scope of work was 

developed:

A Soldier from Bravo Company, 864th Engineer Battalion, Fort 

Lewis, Washington, nails the wall for a bunker at an outpost on 

an Afghanistan mountain.
36 Engineer April-June 2008

Construct a combat trail from FOB Bermel—another 

facility in the eastern part of Paktika Province—to the 

COP.

Clear the hilltop of trees in order to provide space for 

construction and fields of fire.

Erect HESCO Bastion Concertainer® walls.

Place a concertina wire perimeter with fields of fire

cleared.

Construct guard towers.

Construct vehicle and living facilities.

Construct weapons facilities.

Construct helicopter landing facilities.

Throughout the last week of July, final preparations for 

movement on the mission began at FOB Orgun-E, outside the 

town of Orgune. To ensure that all required materials were on 

hand for each day of the construction plan, CONEX shipping 

containers were packed by day with the required materials. 

The small size of the site necessitated staggered deliveries of 

construction materials. Additionally, lumber was precut and 

facilities were prefabricated wherever possible to speed onsite construction. 

On 1 August, the construction team began continuous 

route construction from FOB Bermel toward the COP construction site. Since maneuver elements were already positioned forward of the construction site, it was determined 

that moving most of the construction element was tactically 

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

sound. The route for the road to get to the construction site 

had to be cleared of trees, reshaped, and widened. Upon 

arrival at the construction site, tree-clearing and groundshaping operations began as ANA engineers staged workers 

and construction materials at the base of the ridge. The infantry platoon also began preparing fighting positions at key 

points surrounding the construction site. 

Construction started with clearing trees from the COP site, 

placing concertina wire, grading and leveling the site, and 

constructing the HESCO wall. Integration of local national 

contractors in the project made it necessary to search and secure local workers and conduct multiple logistical convoys 

to support their equipment and to move construction materials. The role of construction surveyors on-site was essential 

since constructing flat pads for guard towers and living areas 

on a site that sloped in two different directions was a significant challenge. To ensure that the interior of the COP could 

not be observed from nearby hilltops, it was determined that 

a portion of the site would have to be raised and stabilized 

with a HESCO retaining wall before construction of the main 

wall. Next, guard towers were constructed, after consulting 

with the maneuver commander who would take control of the 

COP. Construction of weapons facilities, vehicle facilities, 

and barracks areas and electrical wiring of the base all occurred during the last phase of the project. 

Completing the entire project within the time limit necessitated multiple logistics packages (LOGPACs), as well as 

an aggressive security plan. Team Bulldog’s attached infantry platoon led more than 20 LOGPAC convoys during the 

mission, shuttling materials and 

repair parts to the construction 

site. The attached infantry and 

ANA platoons also conducted 

dismounted patrols in the area 

of the jobsite. Security measures 

were necessary because insurgents launched three rocket and 

mortar attacks on the construction site during the mission, and 

one LOGPAC convoy was attacked with an improvised explosive device (IED). Despite 

these obstacles, Team Bulldog 

successfully completed the COP 

and returned to FOB Bermel. 

Lessons Learned

During the construction of the one of the COPs, Team Bulldog 

developed a number of TTP that 

may be useful to units tasked 

to construct COPs in austere 

locations: locations: A Soldier places a concertina wire perimeter.
April-June 2008 Engineer 37

Integrate early with the maneuver task force for planning 

the combined arms mission in order to identify logistical 

and security requirements, as well as control expectations 

for the construction effort.

Initiate the design and material estimate for the project 

as soon as possible, checking all plans with the customer. 

Procuring materials and funding for large construction 

projects takes deliberate effort months before execution.

Verify fields of fire for all guard towers before construction. Determine tactical requirements that impact 

the design process.

Conduct a full topographic survey, if possible. This will 

reveal construction issues before movement is initiated.

Ensure that surveyors are on-site during construction to 

resolve construction issues.

Precut and pack materials by the day of construction to 

avoid having to sort materials on-site.

Augment military equipment and labor with civilian 

equipment. Military equipment is required because 

civilian equipment can be unreliable if used exclusively. 

However, use of civilian equipment to accelerate 

production is necessary when executing missions with 

fixed suspense dates.

Inspect all civilian equipment a week before movement 

to allow time for repairs. Planning for civilian contractor 

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

integration into a combined arms mission must be 

deliberate and thorough to ensure that contractor delays 

do not affect mission accomplishment. Operations 

security requirements must also be considered.

Enduring Effects

The COP construction mission described in this article 

demonstrated that maneuver units can integrate construction engineer effects into their operational plan 

as part of a counterinsurgency campaign. If properly planned 

and synchronized with the maneuver task force, construction 

engineers can leverage their unique capabilities as a part of 

the counterinsurgency fight. A forward-positioned COP along 

the Pakistan border led to an immediate disruption of insurgent activity in the local area and caused a dramatic decrease 

in insurgent activity in the vicinity of FOB Bermel. With the 

ability to directly observe and control the border, Task Force 

Eagle made strides in separating the enemy from the local 

population. These effects were made possible by the efforts 

of combat heavy engineers.

Captain Melin is the commander of Bravo Company, 

864th Engineer Battalion, which deployed as part of Task 

Force Pacemaker. He previously served as civil engineer and 

assistant operations officer for Task Force Pacemaker. He 

is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West 

Point, New York.

Engineers from Bravo Company, 864th Engineer Battalion, Fort Lewis, Washington, put up wall structures 

for a new bunker that will serve as an outpost in the middle of the mountains in eastern Afghanistan.
38 Engineer April-June 2008
April-June 2008 Engineer 39
40 Engineer April-June 2008

Today’s counterinsurgency (COIN) operations require 

engineer leaders to have knowledge of both the 

lethal and nonlethal effects that can be used on the 

battlefield. In Iraq and Afghanistan, engineer officers and 

noncommissioned officers are being asked to provide technical 

expertise some of them are ill-equipped to give based on 

the engineering educations they have received through the 

Officer Education System (OES) and Noncommissioned 

Officer Education System (NCOES), not to mention the 

nonengineering-related civilian-source degrees they possess. 

Conjuring up a bill of materials (BOM), writing a concise 

yet complete and understandable scope or statement of work 

(SOW) for construction, and pushing the requests of the 

maneuver commander through the contracting and tasking 

processes are skills our leaders need to improve. This kind of 

training needs to be inserted immediately.

Further, engineer leaders at all levels are being asked to 

provide oversight and assistance for the life support of our 

Soldiers through base camp and life support construction. 

The mission of quickly establishing and maintaining safe 

and secure contingency operating locations of all sizes is 

a task that is dumped into the engineer’s lap in our current 

contingency operation. Facilities engineering skills—to

include environmental assessments, master planning, lifecycle costing, and maintenance oversight—are skills that 

have not been stressed in our professional force. Because of 

the overwhelming use of and need for these skills as 

we continue the War on Terrorism, the United States 

Army Engineer School (USAES) should develop a 

cell that can ensure the development and maintenance 

of certain core competencies that our engineer leaders 

need to meet the challenges of this war.

Core Competencies for the Future

Five core engineer competencies for the required 

future of COIN operations, based on lessons 

learned in the War on Terrorism, are—

Construction project development. 

Contracting and funding.

Field force engineering.

Facility engineer planning. 

Executing the total quality management process. 

Each of these has unique attributes that must be 

considered in the implementation of any future 

training program.

Construction Project Development

Construction project development consists of three 

primary elements that every engineer needs to be able 

to perform: 

Project scoping. Our engineers must be able 

to site-adapt a pre-engineered design, develop

limited independent contingency designs,

write indigenously understandable construction 

specifications, and write a clear and concise 

SOW.

■

■

■

■

■

■

By Major Erik C. Backus

Field Force and Facility 

Engineer Training

Personnel from the 243d Construction Management Team set up 

a surveying beacon near Patrol Base Dragon in Iraq.
April-June 2008 Engineer 41

Project estimation. Our engineers must be able to develop 

reasonable project schedules using either government 

or commercial software, do construction plan and

specification take-offs in order to develop a BOM, 

and develop an order-of-magnitude estimate with the 

application of estimating tools and sources. 

Project package development. Our engineers must be able 

to compile the SOW, drawings, and specifications; review

documents to ensure that they meet required life-safety, 

regulatory, and code provisions; and gain the applicable

endorsements and buy-ins through the staff process. 

All of these skills are required on and off the forward operating base (FOB) in order to provide the maneuver commander 

with an effective way to shape the terrain by developing wellplanned and well-executed construction projects.

Contracting and Funding

Contracting and funding requires an understanding of both 

these separate yet interrelated processes. The contracting 

process includes—

Coordination with the applicable contracting agency.

An understanding of the roles and responsibilities 

of the contracting officer (KO), the contracting officer’s

representative (COR), and the contracting officer’s 

technical representative (COTR).

Bid selection processes and rules.

Construction contract administration.

The funding process includes—

An understanding of construction fiscal law and 

limitations.

An understanding of contingency funding processes such

as the Joint Facilities Utilization Board, Joint Acquisition 

Review Board, Logistics Civil Augmentation Program,

and military construction.

The development of funding packets.

While easy to describe, this skill set is enormous in its 

implications on the battlefield. Without it, our engineers can 

quickly become stymied in their ability to make their project 

packages achieve the results intended.

Field Force Engineering

Field force engineering (FFE) links engineer components 

to provide a seamless capability. Its elements center on—

Force protection. Engineers have much to do with

developing appropriate force protection elements,

including—

Development and enforcement of antiterrorism and 

security engineering criteria, including their 

integration into project design. 

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

□

Execution of indirect-fire mitigation and risk analysis.

Fostering an understanding of the relationship 

between base-centered force protection and lethal 

operations.

Life support. Providing life support takes the form of—

Facility development and facility program 

requirement identification.

Development of, and connections to, necessary

systems such as electricity, sanitation, water, and 

solid waste disposal.

Critical analysis of programming requirements and 

regulations on life support.

Infrastructure. Engineers play a large role in any facility’s 

infrastructure, including—

Development of base and localized infrastructure 

systems.

Coordination with local support structures.

Maintenance and crisis-resolution planning.

Life, health, and fire safety. It is critical that engineers 

understand life, health, and fire safety requirements,

including—

Code compliance, egress, and inspections.

Prioritization of efforts.

Building siting and dig permit/safety program 

development.

Construction site safety marking and safety plan 

implementation. 

“Protect the force” has been rendered on many a missionessential task list by unit commanders, but it is critical that 

we empower engineer leaders with the skills listed above to 

enable that protection to happen.

Facility Engineer Planning

To execute the long-term engineer fight, our leaders need 

to be educated in master planning, facility management, and 

operational planning and have an understanding of economic 

battlefield effects. 

Master planning involves—

Long-range facility planning.

Base alignment (opening and closure).

Facility requirement identification. 

Facility management/operational planning include—

Supporting the maneuver commander by planning for

pre-positioned BOM.

Assisting with operations and maintenance takeover.

Transitioning to Installation Management Authority/

Department of Public Works control of installations. 

□

□

■

□

□

□

■

□

□

□

■

□

□

□

□

■

□

□

□

■

□

□

□
42 Engineer April-June 2008

Economic battlefield effects include—

Local Commander’s Emergency Response Program

(CERP) efforts.

Installation effects on the local economy.

Development of micro-industries and employment as 

a part of COIN. 

Engineers have a key piece in the nonlethal fight and can use 

these planning skills to provide the combatant commander 

with much more bang for his buck.

Total Quality Management Processes

Mastery of total quality management processes includes 

an understanding of—

Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) systems. 

QA/QC education must teach leaders to integrate QC into

all projects, develop a QA program with planned oversight,

and develop corrective action plans in case quality does 

not meet standards.

Project tracking and work order system management.

Project tracking and work order system management

needs leaders who can execute database management, use 

geographical imaging software, and provide real property

management. This last skill set not only ensures that the 

commander gets what he wants; it ensures that he doesn’t 

get a lemon.

Future Education Leader

The Facility Engineer Group (FEG), the headquarters 

for facility engineer detachments and teams, is 

transitioning and preparing to hand over its functions 

to the 412th and 416th Theater Engineer Commands. Up until 

now, the skill sets and core competencies listed in the previous 

paragraphs have resided within the personnel and organization 

of the FEG. With its loss, some organization is needed to 

ensure that the education systems of tomorrow integrate these 

skill sets and core competencies and ensure their development 

■

□

□

□

■

■

during practical assignments. Ultimately, USAES must be the 

education leader with an organization such as a Directorate 

of Field Force and Facility Engineering (see figure above) 

to apply these skills to practical Army challenges, followed 

by developmental assignments that enable leaders to refine 

these skills and gain invaluable experience. I recommend that 

this directorate include departments of doctrine development, 

training, and force developments. With this structure, and the 

integration of training in the above core competencies into 

our engineer OES and NCOES, this directorate could enable 

the collection and dissemination of the knowledge engineer 

leaders will need to win the construction and facility engineer 

fight for the future.

Hard lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq have taught us 

to change our tactics and remember some lost lessons learned. 

The COIN fight in Iraq requires that today’s engineer leaders 

equip tomorrow’s engineer leaders with the skills to provide 

world-class military engineering capability to combatant 

commanders in the contemporary operating environment. 

These core competencies are even more important as we 

continue to engage in environments like the Middle East, 

where political and economic operations are the essential 

elements that enable us to consolidate military successes 

and achieve national objectives. Construction, field force, 

and facility engineering skills are the critical missing link to 

prevent failure in these kinds of operations in the future. We 

must act now, while we are meeting success in the breach, 

to ensure that we are not bogged down by the obstacles our 

enemies have tried to place around us.

Major Backus has served in a variety of command and 

staff assignments, commanding the 955th Engineer Company 

(Pipeline Construction), and serving in the 389th Engineer 

Battalion (Combat) (Heavy) in Baghdad during the first year 

of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is a registered professional 

engineer in Missouri, currently serving as the lead design 

engineer for the 20th Engineer Brigade (Combat) (Airborne), 

deployed to Logistics Support Area Anaconda in Balad, Iraq.

Department of Doctrine

Development (O-5)

Department of

Training (O-5)

Department of Force 

Developments (O-5)

O-4 Chief, 1x O-3 and 1x 

E-7/8 Writer/Developer

O-4 Leader, 1x O-3 Lead 

Trainer, 2x E-7/8 Instructors

1x O-3 and 1x

E 7/8 Developer

Teams by Core

Competency (5 each)

4x Training Teams

Director (O-6)

Directorate of Field Force and Facility Engineering
April-June 2008 Engineer 43

As a junior officer in the 

Army, are you contemplating whether or not a tour in 

a United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) district is the right 

job for you? Are you concerned that 

you will not receive the training you 

need to be a successful officer in 

USACE and that the likelihood of 

further promotions will be lessened? 

Maybe you are concerned that this is 

a sleepy job that you will not enjoy, 

or that working under the supervision 

of a civilian will impede your professional development.1 You might even 

be concerned that although you are 

an engineer officer, you do not have 

adequate experience in construction or the ability to perform this job 

successfully. Perhaps all these things 

are troubling you, and although you 

have heard great things about working for the “Corps,” you are still hesitant to talk to the Engineer Branch 

about assigning you to that type of 

job. If these things are bothering you, and you aren’t sure if 

this is the kind of assignment you want, I hope to put your 

concerns to rest and assure you that a tour with a USACE district is both professionally and personally rewarding, as well 

as challenging. But the Army, USACE, and the officer will all

benefit from the experience.

A job in a USACE district exposes young officers to a 

whole new side of the Corps of Engineers, allowing them to 

gain experience in construction, develop and hone negotiating skills, and develop new leadership skills. Ideally, a new 

officer reporting to USACE will be assigned as a project 

engineer to an area office on a military base as part of the 

military construction (MILCON) program. The construction 

experience a captain or major gains in the area office is invaluable. There, officers learn to read construction blueprints 

and inspect actual construction for conformance to required 

specifications, along with learning the basics of construction 

management. Part of the job will also likely include negotiating modifications to construction contracts with a prime 

contractor on the project. These same skills are required in 

Afghanistan and Iraq every day, not just by USACE representatives but also by units and Provincial Reconstruction Teams 

(PRTs). 

Although not normally assigned to “leadership” positions 

in an area office, officers still have a great opportunity to display, refine, teach, and exercise leadership skills. Not having been exposed to the civilian personnel system in previous assignments, you will have to learn how the new civilian 

system, known as the National Security Personnel System 

(NSPS), works. Regardless of your position in the area office, you are looked upon differently, both by contractors and 

by the Department of the Army civilians you work with. All 

of them expect the utmost in professionalism, honesty, discipline, and levelheadedness. USACE civilian employees are 

all required to be in a leadership development program when 

they first come on board, and you may have opportunities to 

talk to them about leadership. You will also likely have the 

opportunity to work for a civilian boss and learn that good 

leadership is not restricted to just military officers. 

By Colonel Christopher W. Martin

“A tour with a USACE district is 

both professionally and personally 

rewarding, as well as challenging.” 

During a deployment to the Afghanistan Engineer District, these engineers work 

with Afghan nationals on a project.
 44 Engineer April-June 2008

A USACE assignment is a great opportunity to continue 

your professional development following a deployment. You 

could catch up on your professional reading, progress toward 

a master’s degree, or become licensed as a professional engineer. Everyone around you will work “civilian” time, and 

regardless of how hard-charging you are, at some point you 

realize you cannot do anything when you are the only one 

in the office. Weekends are generally open and available to 

spend time with your family. 

This doesn’t mean you won’t deploy. Officers are needed in the Afghanistan Engineer District, as well as the Gulf 

Region Division, which has three districts inside Iraq. In addition, many districts maintain a Field Engineering Support 

Team–Advanced (FEST-A), which includes a military officer 

as the leader. The FEST-A’s must be ready to deploy worldwide on a rotational basis and routinely deploy to the Joint 

Readiness Training Center (JRTC) or the National Training 

Center (NTC) for training with brigade combat teams (BCTs) 

and/or divisions as they train for, and conduct, mission rehearsal exercises. The FEST-A’s are actually expanding to 

table of organization and equipment (TOE) units, adding a 

noncommissioned officer (NCO) as well as the engineer captain, and coding civilian personnel positions to be on this 

team beginning in fiscal year 2008. FEST-A’s provide technical reachback to USACE labs and center of engineering 

expertise and have embedded the following skills: 

Real estate acquisition and disposal of real property 

Facilities design and development and infrastructure planning and assessments

Environmental engineering, including baseline environmental assessments and environmental assessments of 

specific host nation facilities to be used by U. S. forces

Geospatial engineering expertise and identification of 

groundwater sources

Facility force protection design and infrastructure 

engineering/assessment

Hardened-target weapons-effect assessments

As a battalion commander in Iraq, I often wished I had an 

officer or NCO with some basic understanding of construction to assist or act as our civil affairs officer and execute 

our construction program within our area of responsibility. 

I believe that having a captain with USACE district experience would have made a difference in being able to provide a 

good set of plans or project specifications to the Iraqi contractors we worked with, to ensure that we got the best possible 

project. The basic construction skills an officer acquires from 

overseeing a USACE MILCON project typically includes 

concrete placement, concrete masonry unit (CMU) construction, and electrical and plumbing installation and would 

have given an officer in the battalion a tremendous level of

credibility in Iraq. 

■

■

■

■

■

■

Engineer officers

review blueprints 

for a project at Fort 

Bliss, Texas.
April-June 2008 Engineer 45

Military officers bring skills to the district not 

normally resident in our civilian teammates. For example, recently our district was tasked to develop 

a “strategic” plan for Customs and Border Protection of the United States Department of Homeland 

Security. To accomplish this mission, we brought in 

several of our junior officers who were able to use 

their military decision-making process skills and 

help guide our civilian teammates through the development of this plan. 

Engineer officers also bring a tremendous capability to support USACE in emergency management operations within the continental United States 

(CONUS). When USACE is brought in to assist the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

following natural disasters (such as hurricanes and 

earthquakes) or terrorist actions (such as at the 

World Trade Center), our officers are invaluable 

in their ability to assist with setting up a command 

and control cell, help organize operations, and assist 

with recovery operations. In the Fort Worth Engineer 

District, we expect all our officers to complete the

Defense Support to Civil Authorities online course 

offered by United States Army North (USARNORTH) to ensure that they are prepared to support 

USACE activities following an emergency event. 

An area we could improve on in USACE is training our new officers when they arrive in the district. There is a 

one-week course, usually in December, that each new officer 

attends. In addition to this course, called the District Officer 

Course, our officers typically attend formal training courses 

in negotiating, quality assurance, and contract administration. 

But we could do a better job of “certifying” our officers to 

make sure they receive the training and experiences they need 

to be successful. Several districts, including the Fort Worth 

Engineer District, are using various certification programs 

to help focus on developing our officers. This is a work-inprogress that other districts are working on with us to make 

it even better. 

Ideally, the captains that are assigned to an engineer district come to us after completing a company command, but 

unfortunately that does not always occur. The district and the 

officer then have to work with the Engineer Branch and the 

engineer units on post to ensure that our officers are not forgotten and have the opportunity to get in the command queue. 

In Fort Worth, we generally expect that officers will work for 

us for two years, and then we try to get them to a unit for command. Because of unit rotations, this is not always possible, 

but the two-year stint provides a pretty good framework for 

us to work with. Although it often works best if the officer has 

already commanded a company, as mentioned previously, an 

officer with USACE experience is a valuable commodity in 

any battalion. 

An assignment in USACE is a professionally rewarding 

experience that contributes to the Army, USACE, and the 

district. You will be a better officer as a result of this tour. 

The skills you learn and the time you take for professional 

advancement will ultimately contribute significantly to your 

development. 

Colonel Martin is the 23d commander and district engineer of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Fort 

Worth District. He previously commanded the 91st Engineer 

Battalion, the first Army engineer battalion to field the Bradley fighting vehicle and then fight it at the National Training 

Center and ultimately in Iraq. He is a graduate of the United 

States Military Academy, the Engineer Officer Basic Course, 

the Infantry Officer Advanced Course, Ranger School, and 

the United States Army War College, and he holds a master’s 

in civil engineering from the University of Illinois.

Endnote

1 “Who We Are,” U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, “The 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is made 

up of approximately 34,600 civilian and 650 military members.” <http://www.usace.army.mil/who/> (accessed on 

7 April 2008).

Soldiers use a nuclear densimeter to determine soil compaction 

and moisture content.
46 Engineer April-June 2008

For a time it was said that “the sun never sets on the 

British Empire.” We believe that the same could be 

said of the current reach and effect of the United States 

Army Facility Engineer Group (USAFEG). Since 11 September 2001, the United States Army Reserve’s facility engineer 

detachments (FEDs) and facility engineer teams (FETs) that 

belong to the USAFEG have provided extraordinary support 

to the nation. The USAFEG has deployed 55 FEDs and FETs 

to such locations as Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Djibouti, 

Kuwait, Qatar, Bosnia, and Kosovo. During this time, FEDs 

and FETs have also provided peacetime facility engineering 

support to locations in Alaska, Hawaii and other Pacific Islands, Germany, and Korea.

The USAFEG is composed of 16 FEDs and 30 FETs distributed across the continental United States and Puerto Rico. 

A detachment or team is led by an engineer lieutenant colonel and filled with highly skilled engineer officers and senior 

noncommissioned officers (NCOs). Our officers and NCOs 

The Sun Never Sets

By Colonel Dwight W. Pearson and Major Curtis L. Decker

on the USAFEG

Road repair at K2 was a top priority in 2002 to improve theater logistics and airbase operations.
April-June 2008 Engineer 47

hold a large number of professional 

engineering, construction management, and environmental degrees and 

nearly one-third are professionally 

registered. A majority of our personnel work in engineering and construction fields in their civilian jobs. In

theaters of operation, USAFEG Soldiers have engaged in projects ranging 

from helping local nationals rebuild 

wells to designing and overseeing airfield construction.

The detachments and teams are 

small, highly autonomous units that 

work with engineers from sister service units such as the United States 

Marine Corps, the United States Air 

Force Rapid Engineer Deployable 

Heavy Operational Repair Squadron 

Engineers (RED HORSE), and the 

United States Navy Seabees. They 

also work with United States Army 

combat engineers, the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 

special operations forces, and local 

national engineers and contractors. 

Army technical engineer teams that 

can perform in all phases of military 

operations and contribute to full spectrum operations reside primarily in the 

Reserve Component. The USAFEG, 

with previous deployment experience 

in the Balkans, has been the major 

contributor of facility engineers during the War on Terrorism. The capabilities of the FEDs and FETs are 

unique because their personnel possess skills from their civilian experience and deploy as Soldiers when needed. 

According to a former 20th Engineer Brigade commander, 

the contributions of the FETs to his mission in Iraq in 2004-

2005 were essential. He stated that he could not have fought 

without them. He marveled at the ability of these small teams 

to have such a great impact on the life support, base operations, command and control, and full spectrum operations of 

the 8,600 Soldiers under his command. He cited the ability of 

the teams to leverage USACE and other reachback assets to 

formulate technical solutions to tactical problems.

One of USAFEG’s first deployments after 11 September 2001 was FET 23 to the primitive base camp at KarshiKhanabad (also known as K2) Airbase in Uzbekistan on 

8 December 2001. FET 23 became the Directorate of Public Works in support of Logistics Task Force 507 and the 

10th Mountain Division. Team members developed the master plan and managed the base commander’s vision for the 

development and construction of K2 to best support and 

sustain combat operations in Afghanistan. In addition, FET 

23 developed the project design, statement of work, and bid 

package for all on-base construction in support of the expansion that would be performed by host nation contractor construction and troop labor projects. During FET 23’s tour, K2 

was transformed from a hastily constructed Harvest Eagle/

Force Provider tent camp, without proper grading and drainage, to a developed camp with metal buildings and proper 

drainage. The team also increased the throughput into theater 

by expanding the maximum on-ground capacity for aircraft 

and improving runway conditions. 

FET 16 had a similar impact during War on Terrorism 

operations while deployed to the Horn of Africa. In October 

2002, FET 16 arrived at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti and, in 

a short period of time, quadrupled the camp’s life support 

capacity, expanded the maximum on-ground capacity for 

aircraft, and coordinated with USACE to drill water wells. 

The well-drilling operations were essential to the continued 

K2 initially had poor drainage that needed improvement by facility engineers.
48 Engineer April-June 2008

goodwill of the local populace. Until this time, Camp Lemonier got its fresh water from the local economy, overtaxing 

the local water supply and threatening to disrupt host nation 

relations. When their mission was complete in Djibouti, the 

members of FET 16 departed for an airfield in an undisclosed 

location, where they planned and executed the hasty construction of a temporary base camp that was essential for close air 

support and insertion of special operations forces in Iraq.

In Djibouti and other areas of operation, water is a scarce 

resource. FED Charlie from Tennessee arrived at Tallil Airbase in southern Iraq in April 2003. Using their design and 

construction management skills, team members devised a 

plan to reestablish a damaged, nonfunctional irrigation canal 

to flow from the Euphrates River into a reservoir planned for 

the airbase. The detachment surveyed the canal and future 

reservoir site, designed proper slope and drainage, coordinated for multinational troop engineer support, and worked to 

set up water purification contracts for the reservoir. It was full 

of usable water by fall 2003.

In the first weeks of the Iraq conflict, FED Bravo from 

Puerto Rico conducted facility assessments of many Baghdad area power, water, and sewer treatment plants. The 

detachment also played a key role in establishing Camp

Victory near Baghdad International Airport. The grid supplying power to the main palace and to the northern section 

of Camp Victory was severely damaged. The Puerto Rico 

detachment conducted utility assessments and determined 

electric load requirements so that prime power units could 

establish generator farms and USACE could establish permanent sources of power for this key operating base. The detachment also sent a team to Fallujah and improved conditions for 

the local populace by working with USACE and contractors 

to fix power, water, and sewage treatment plants in the area.

While contributions to Operation Iraqi Freedom and

Operation Enduring Freedom have been significant, FEDs 

and FETs have continued to provide other valuable services 

to the nation. Detachments, teams, and individual Soldiers 

stand by to provide support and technical expertise in natural 

disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. They also provide support to major exercises in the continental United States and 

overseas. In the fall of 2008, a team will deploy to Bulgaria 

for a 60-day exercise. Also, facility engineer Soldiers are often asked to fill various interesting individual deployments 

and tours around the world.

The pace of support to the War on Terrorism and other 

exciting engineering missions continues. Soldiers who have 

an engineer military occupational specialty, or have relevant 

civilian engineering or construction management skills, will 

find that FEDs and FETs offer highly professional, challenging, flexible opportunities with unit locations across the country. For information about joining this dynamic organization, 

contact the authors.

Colonel Pearson is the commander of the United States Army 

Facility Engineer Group. He is a graduate of the Virginia Military Institute and the Army War College and is a registered professional engineer in Pennsylvania. In his civilian occupation, 

he is a civil engineer for Pittsburgh Naval Reactors at the Bettis 

Atomic Power Laboratory. His e-mail address is <dwight.pearson@us.army.mil>.

Major Decker is the operations officer for the United States 

Army Facility Engineer Group. He holds a bachelor’s in civil 

engineering from the United States Military Academy at West 

Point, New York, and a master’s in civil engineering from the 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is a registered 

professional engineer and a registered structural engineer. His 

e-mail address is <curtis.decker@us.army.mil>.

Well-drilling design and construction is just one of the many services provided by facility engineer 

detachments and teams.
April-June 2008 Engineer 49

“Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is 

training with minimum food and water, in austere conditions, 

day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon. He 

doesn’t worry about what workout to do–his rucksack weighs 

what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing 

him. The True Believer doesn’t care how hard it is; he knows 

he either wins or dies. He doesn’t go home at 1700—he is 

home. He knows only The Cause. Now, who wants to quit?”

Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course, 

Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

Collected Wisdom

This article provides straightforward, honest advice 

for future United States Army engineer company 

commanders. The company commander’s battle 

is personal, intense, and often violent. Whether in garrison 

or on operations, it is never routine. This document brings 

together the collective experience of previous company or 

squadron commanders from the United States Army, United 

States Marine Corps, Australian Army, and British Army. The 

contributors have fought in Northern Ireland, Iraq, Bosnia, 

East Timor, Afghanistan, Solomon Islands, Kosovo, Somalia, 

Rwanda, and Haiti. They have done the hard yards, made 

some mistakes, and learned from them. Perhaps their thoughts 

will be useful as you prepare for command. 

You are always the commander. Whether at work, in the 

field, at home, or on leave, you are always the commander. 

Everything you do or say (or do not) will be analyzed and 

discussed by the members of your unit. Lead by example, 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You must push yourself to 

be better than everybody else by setting the example in 

everything from fitness, combatives, and marksmanship, to 

understanding tactical doctrine and current affairs. When you 

can, participate with the troops by getting dirty and sweaty. 

Morale is always high when the Soldiers see the boss out of 

the tactical operations center (TOC) doing physical training 

(PT) with the troops or helping out with a work party. 

Show the essence of leadership. You provide energy, 

purpose, direction, motivation, and—most importantly—

leadership. Have the confidence to stand alone, the courage 

to make tough decisions, and the compassion to listen to the 

needs of others. Take care of your Soldiers and their Families. 

Train your Soldiers to fight, yet also to do the right thing. 

Resource your sappers for the task you give them, and do 

not delude yourself by constantly asking them to “do more 

with less.” Encourage your team to understand their role 

in the larger plan. Do what you can with what you have, 

wherever you are. After receiving guidance for a task, do not 

ask permission—do what needs to be done! 

Always be learning for command. You should spend 

your staff time observing success and failure in commanders. 

When not in command, make sure you are an instructor so 

you remain close to the troops. Put away the war novels and 

read professional books. Read and analyze history to learn 

By Major John N. Carey
 50 Engineer April-June 2008

how a Soldier thinks and acts, and you will quickly realize 

that counterinsurgency is not a new training event. You will 

see how others have achieved success with the barest of 

resources. You will begin to understand the importance of 

courage, humility, and fairness.

Learn from your unit’s heritage. Keep photos, key 

documents, and press clippings. Foster links with organizations 

of retired military engineers. Do not allow yourself to inbreed 

by studying only Western military history. Read the classics, 

such as Sun Tzu, Vo Nguyen Giap, Mao Tse-tung, Sayyid 

Qutb, Carl von Clausewitz, T.E. Lawrence, and Basil Liddell 

Hart. Also read Lieutenant General Hal Moore, Guy Sajer, 

Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl, Robert Taber, Jim Collins, 

and Bruce Gudmundsson. Check out the U.S. Army Chief of 

Staff’s professional reading list at <http://www.history.army.

mil/reference/CSAList/CSAList.htm>, and read Field Manual 

(FM) 1.0, The Army; FM 1-02, Operational Terms and 

Graphics; FM 3.0, Operations; FM 3.24, Counterinsurgency; 

FM 3.34, Engineer Operations; and FM 5.0, Army Planning 

and Orders Production. 

Talk to everyone you can. Ask your Soldiers about the 

strengths and weaknesses of the unit. Talk to the executive 

officer (XO) and first sergeant and get their honest assessments. 

Talk to the command sergeant major, battalion XO, and 

operations and training officer, and find out if there are any 

significant personnel issues or operational tasks coming in the 

next 90 days. Get a gut feel for how the current commander 

does business. Understand the deals that have been made, 

promises issued, contracts negotiated, and missions planned, 

because you will have to assume ownership of the outcomes. 

After taking command, never bad-mouth the previous 

commander. How would your Soldiers know that you will 

not do the same to them? 

Get a real handover from the outgoing commander. As you 

get ready for the change of command, ask yourself:

What is the personality of the unit? 

What are its quirks? 

What is the status of discipline, training, morale, and 

maintenance? 

Think smart and not always hard. Aggressiveness and 

initiative are admirable qualities, but you must also think. 

Focus on the big picture. Do not get lost in the noise of 

immediate issues. There may be urgent phone calls and 

e-mails but spend some time thinking, postulating, and 

shaping the future of your unit; nobody else will do this if 

you don’t. Develop a command philosophy that lays out your 

command style, intent, objectives, and priorities. Spend time 

thinking about this before the change of command ceremony. 

Recognize that your priorities will change. The baseline 

must be Soldier first, sapper second, and specialist third. You 

are there to command, but that also includes leadership and 

management. Leadership is required in periods of uncertainty, 

while management looks at the details to ensure efficiency. 

You cannot focus on just one—you must succeed at all three.

Be honest. When your opinion is sought, be confident, be 

clear, but above all be honest. Nobody respects a person who 

offers a view shaped by what he 

believes is wanted rather than that 

which he actually believes. Never 

ask someone to do something 

you would not do yourself. Do 

not be afraid to report shortfalls 

in capability and readiness. 

Never be afraid to make the 

hard—but legal—decisions with 

weak leaders. Do not tolerate 

bad leaders; bad leaders in 

peace will be bad leaders on 

operations. Give unsatisfactory 

leaders counseling, training, 

and guidance, but if they do not 

improve to the standard required, 

remove them. 

Work with the battalion 

commander. He is not just a 

provider of tasks but also a 

valuable source of experience 

and advice. He will enjoy 

discussing challenges and issues 

with you and your team. Keep 

him informed and demonstrate 

what you are doing with your 

■

■

■

Develop your ability to command in a tactical environment by setting your team 

up for success.
April-June 2008 Engineer 51

command. Developing a close relationship with the battalion 

commander and command sergeant major will give you the 

confidence to approach them on any issue. 

Develop an open and honest relationship with your 

first sergeant. The officers and noncommissioned officers 

(NCOs) in your unit deserve nothing less. Your unit will fail 

in its mission unless the commander and the first sergeant 

speak with the same voice. Whether you visit the troops in 

the field or conduct PT, your first sergeant must always be 

with you. Your first sergeant has risen to be the senior Soldier 

of the company for good reason—he can be trusted. He will 

think of things you have not. He will not always agree with 

you, but he will always back you once you’ve made your 

decision. 

Know your Soldiers and demonstrate genuine concern 

for them. Ask your Soldiers where they come from, how 

many kids they have, and what they think of their training. 

Let Soldiers explain their trade to you so you can represent 

them better and make more effective decisions on their behalf. 

The Soldiers will suffer if the boss locks himself away in the 

TOC. Constant tours and two-way communication with the 

Soldiers, pats on the back where justified and boots in the 

backside when required, are mandatory. Get out from behind 

your desk and establish relationships with your Soldiers, or 

you will lack awareness of what is really happening in the 

unit. Never underestimate the importance of simply saying 

hello. There is nothing more powerful than hearing the boss 

say, “Hey, you are an outstanding Soldier, and I want to 

reenlist you in the Army.”

Leave the company in better shape than you found it. It 

is not “your” company—you are just looking after it. Practice 

mission command both in garrison and on operations. 

Make sure your subordinates can do the job two levels up. 

Encourage problem-solving and supervision of tasks at the 

lowest practical level. Ensure that your first sergeant and 

senior NCOs stand up and take on big-ticket issues. Give clear 

commander’s intent. Do not get in the habit of giving useless 

briefings. Properly prepared and issued orders instill discipline 

and confidence at all levels of command. Subordinates cannot 

execute mission analysis from a briefing. Give your NCOs the 

resources, get them to back-brief those orders formally before 

going on the mission, provide plenty of encouragement, and 

ensure that they provide a post-brief afterward. 

Become a problem solver. The U.S. Army has policies on 

everything, and they all can be found at Army Knowledge 

Online. Check current policy first, and be wary of people who 

insist on relying on memory and are not prepared to quote a 

reference when asked. They may be hiding ignorance with 

bluff, or they may have been in the job so long they cannot be 

bothered to check. Tell your Soldiers early in your tenure how 

you intend to make decisions:

Tell me what the problem is.

Tell me what the policy guidance says.

Give me options and recommendations.

I will give you a decision.

You do not need to be an expert at everything since you will 

be commanding very intelligent and experienced Soldiers, 

and there is plenty of support available from the chain of 

command. At the end of the day though, do not be afraid to 

trust your gut. When you have 70 percent of the facts and time 

is short, make a decision. Just make sure you know when to 

stop fighting for something you believe is right. Debate your 

point of view until a decision is made, and then support the 

decision wholeheartedly. 

Tell others how important engineers are to the fight.

We are often very humble about our success. As an engineer 

■

■

■

■

You provide energy, 

purpose, direction, 

motivation, and—

most importantly—

leadership.
 52 Engineer April-June 2008

commander, you are one of the next leaders of the Regiment. 

You can play a much larger part in shaping its future direction 

than you probably realize. Ensure that you get out and sell the 

engineers and our broad range of capabilities. Educate your 

supported commanders and your peers. Some of the questions 

to ask yourself are—

What do topographic engineers do? 

When was the last time you read FM 3-34, Engineer 

Operations? 

Do you understand the relationship between the breaching 

organization and breaching fundamentals? 

How are warrant officers integrated into construction

effects battalions? 

What do United States Marine Corps, Navy Seabee, and 

Air Force engineers bring to the fight? 

What engineer capabilities do the Aussies, Brits, and 

Canadians have that I might use in-theater? 

Know all the capabilities of military engineers and their 

effects across the full spectrum of operations. 

Talk the talk and walk the walk. Work hard to develop 

relationships with your supported commanders. Aim to make 

yourself an integral part of their team. Educate them by 

giving them briefs that explain your role and capabilities, if 

necessary. When you walk into any TOC, you should know 

just as much about combined arms operations and warfighting 

philosophy as any infantry or armor officer at your level. Do 

you understand the maneuverist approach, targeting, effectsbased operations, and the intelligence cycle? As either a 

staff officer or commander, always be thinking about how to 

promote engineers. Do small things well. Ask of any project 

how can it be done better. Strive for self-improvement through 

constant self-evaluation—of both your unit and yourself as an 

engineer officer.

Communications are the key. With so much done 

by computers, e-mails, Blackberrys, conferences, and 

committees, make sure you get around to your team, listen, 

and then talk to them. Determine who will tell you the truth 

about the company and form good relationships with them. 

Talk to the chaplain, medical officer, supply staff, and unit 

mechanics. Walking around with a cup of coffee is a great 

approach. Face-to-face contact is best, followed by radio 

or telephone, and finally by written communication. You 

can always tell by the look in someone’s eye or the tone of 

someone’s voice if the person got your message. Ask yourself 

which form of communication you would prefer with your 

boss while in the fight—an impersonal e-mail or a calm face 

and reassuring voice.

Maintain a healthy ego but keep it in check. Your company 

might be the best in the battalion, but there is no need to rub it 

in the faces of the other company commanders. Be passionate 

but humble. You are part of a team, and you need to look after 

■

■

■

■

■

■

and assist each other. In all forms of communication, use “we” 

more than “me, myself, and I,” unless you are expressing your 

intent or taking responsibility. When talking to other Soldiers, 

spouses, partners, or anyone else, it is more respectful to use 

the phrase, “I work with Private X,” rather than, “Private X 

works for me.” Respect is a two-way street.

Work to maintain readiness. Do not underestimate how 

much work is involved in that task; understand Army systems, 

check, then keep rechecking. Constantly prepare your 

personnel for operations, establish readiness procedures, and 

practice call-outs. Train as you fight, and fight as you train. 

Whether you are fighting in Belfast, Dili, or Baghdad, or just 

“shooting the breeze” in the United States, you are always 

training your Soldiers. Engineers must maintain both technical 

engineer and military skills. If you neglect either of these, 

you will be irrelevant to the fight. A tool some commanders 

use is to color-code the training program; green for engineer 

skills training, red for military skills. You will quickly see 

how the balance looks and where your gaps exist. Remember, 

military engineers are thinking Soldiers and thinking Soldiers 

need rest. Attempt to achieve the required task to operational 

standards at the least cost to your men. After 15 months in 

Mosul or Darfur, you will value the personal reserves this will 

create. 

Care for your unit’s personnel and equipment. Good units 

do routine things routinely—find a way to make maintenance 

and supply a part of your weekly battle cycle and protect their 

importance. Equipment care is vital because it underpins 

operational success. As a commander, you will be unable to 

get involved in the plethora of detail on equipment care, but 

your subordinates must understand its importance and that 

you take it seriously. Early in your tenure, seek out key people 

in the battalion who can assist you. Act quickly to resolve 

the issues that affect your people, especially areas of pay, 

housing, and medical care. Learn about the capabilities of the 

information systems in your unit. Before you get frustrated 

with your subordinates, understand what they are dealing 

with. Assist them by telling the chain of command what the 

problems are and look for ways to fix them.

Be brilliant at the basics. Always maintain an operational 

focus. With 2,000 years of example behind us, we have 

no excuse for not understanding how to fight the “ThreeBlock War.” Develop your ability to command in a tactical 

environment by setting your team up for success. At the 

company level, practice the military decision-making 

process. Ensure that your platoon leaders use troop-leading 

procedures (TLP). Write operations orders both in garrison 

and on operations. Get out with your lieutenants and NCOs; 

go on terrain walks; conduct tactical exercises without troops 

(TEWTs); read and discuss controversial articles; discuss 

current affairs, technical procedures, doctrine, and the 

military art. When visiting Soldiers in the field, help them 

focus on the way they communicate; for instance, sappers do 

not “blow stuff up,” they attack targets. Know your weapons 

and communications systems and how to employ them to 
April-June 2008 Engineer 53

best effect. Marksmanship, PT, first aid, communications, 

navigation, and battle drills are essential for survival. Do 

you and your Soldiers know how to operate every weapon 

in the company? Does your company execute full spectrum 

PT—aerobic, anaerobic, battle, confidence, obstacles, ropes, 

rifle, games, competitions, and team sports? Do your Soldiers 

know how to navigate using both a compass and a global 

positioning system? Do your Soldiers know how to organize 

a casualty evacuation? 

Never underestimate the need for technical control.

An engineer mission will fail if it is not technically correct. 

Signs of a possible decline in engineer technical competence 

include—

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

response in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Comments from senior military engineer leaders regarding 

engineer support to the War on Terrorism.

Increased emphasis from senior leaders on construction 

engineering tasks because of stability operations and lack 

of technical competence within USACE.

The failure of the current engineer force structure to 

facilitate senior engineer mentoring of junior engineer 

officers.

Known decreases in military engineering developmental 

assignments.

A shift toward a mobility and countermobility mentality 

in the Engineer Regiment.

The Chief of Engineers has asked the commandant of 

the United States Army Engineer School to lead further 

investigation and resolution of the decline, and company 

commanders can help. Technical control can cross boundaries 

if you plan and specify it in orders—be smart and use the 

network and people available. If you are a civil engineer, get 

your professional engineering license.

Ensure that your Soldiers complete technical courses at 

the USACE Learning Center at Huntsville, Alabama; USACE 

Protective Design Center at Omaha, Nebraska; and the United 

States Air Force Institute of Technology at Wright-Patterson Air 

Force Base, Ohio. Ensure that our technical skill base is being 

preserved and not degraded by workloads that are repetitive 

in a narrow skills band or are non-engineer tasks. Write about 

your experiences in professional publications. Examine how 

your allies support general engineering. Seek reachback 

solutions from industry and the Corps. Get involved in the 

Society of American Military Engineers, industry, and other 

relevant professional associations. Use civil detachments and 

two-way exchanges, which are normally cheap and effective 

training. Ensure that these organizations understand you and 

your role. Prepare a simple memorandum of understanding to 

cover both the Army and the organization.

■

■

■

■

■

■

Look after Families. We cannot do without the support 

of our Families. Soldiers cannot keep their minds on the job 

and be effective if there are problems at home. Keep Families 

informed, and know how the Family Readiness Group 

works. Make sure you program stand-downs to coincide 

with school vacation to give partners a break from looking 

after the kids on their own. Socialize and get to know the 

Families and friends of the company. Write letters to parents 

telling them how well their son or daughter is doing in the 

unit. Conduct briefings and open days for Families. Do 

everything you can to support Families, but develop a thick 

skin too. Nothing will ever be enough for some, and you can 

never please everyone, particularly the vocal minority. Do 

not let this get you down or deter you from doing your best 

for all Families.

Conclusion

Y. ou have been deployed to Iraq and/or Afghanistan 

 not just twice but three times. You have been a platoon 

leader in combat and have spent some time as a 

fighting XO. You have seen company commanders come and 

go. Some were studs and others were not so good. You have 

read The Challenge of Command by Roger H. Nye, Small 

Unit Leadership by Dandridge M. Malone, and Company 

Commander by Charles Brown MacDonald. You have 

completed the Engineer Captains Career Course and the 

Sapper Leader Course. You are studying Arabic, Farsi, or 

Pashto because you know that you are engaged in a “Long 

War.” You’ve spent the last few years building the skills, 

experience, and judgment that you believe are critical for 

successful company command. Are you ready to take up the 

guidon?

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the following professional 

warfighters from around the world who provided input or 

feedback for this article: Brigadier General Gregg Martin, 

United States Army (USA); Brigadier General John Sterling 

(USA); Brigadier Steve Day, Royal Australian Engineers 

(RAE); Colonel Andy Phillips, Royal Engineers (RE); Colonel 

Marcus Fielding (RAE); Colonel Bill Thomson (RAE); 

Colonel David Stephens (RE); Colonel Glenn Stockton 

(RAE); Colonel Jerry Meyer (USA); Lieutenant Colonel 

Carlos Perez (USA); Major Keith Kramer (USA); Major 

Jeremy Jeffery (USA); and Captain Christopher Haar, United 

States Marine Corps. Special thanks to Major Declan Ellis 

(RAE) for developing the very first Thoughts on Engineer 

Command in 2003 in Australia. Some of that material was 

included in the article.

Major Carey, a member of the Australian Army, is the 

Division Chief, Engineer Captains Career Course, at the 

United States Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri.
54 Engineer April-June 2008

I

t was anticipated in 2005 that if U.S. forces remained 

in Iraq, they would occupy four large contingency 

operations bases (COBs). This assumption lead to the 

sourcing of four facility engineer teams (FETs) to supplement 

the anticipated Directorate of Public Works (DPW) cells of 

mayor’s sections created from the respective area support 

groups. By late 2007, U.S. forces had more than 50 bases 

throughout Iraq, some of them exceeding the concept of a 

COB, and all requiring more facilities engineering expertise 

than was available. 

DPW Challenges

While each base is slightly different, Logistical 

Support Area (LSA) Anaconda will serve as an 

example. The mayor’s section—an ad hoc unit 

responsible for the administration of the base—has a DPW 

cell consisting of three officers, supported by a FET, which is 

responsible for the management of a COB with the population 

of a small city. The challenges facing this team are—

Delivery of utilities.

Planning for the growth of new programs.

Competing interests for real estate.

Improvements to quality of life.

Quality of contract construction. 

Working closely with this team are—

KBR, the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program 

 (LOGCAP) operations and maintenance contractor.

The Gulf Region Division office of the United States

 Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

Local contractors.

Even with these enablers, the staff is challenged by the 

requirements of running the facility.

The FET has been assigned to provide master 

planning support and develop and execute 

construction projects for the COB tenant units and 

organizations. The FET has some design capability 

and provides expertise in facilities engineering 

and construction management. However, there 

are many more locations in-country that need FET 

assistance with everything from drainage issues to 

building design such as ammunition holding and 

transfer point placement and construction. 

The LOGCAP contract provides the basis 

for obtaining critical logistic and life sustainment 

services in the operational environment. This is 

a proven concept and has reduced the number of 

Soldiers providing logistics, enabling the Army to 

use its personnel for combat power and direct combat 

support roles. It should be remembered, however, that this 

effort is a contract and the purpose of any business bidding 

on work is to make a profit. KBR provides its services for 

a fee. The government’s representative, whether military 

or civilian, should know the facilities operations and 

management business just as well as the contractor to ensure 

the implementation of the most efficient solution that meets 

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

By Lieutenant Colonel Gregory B. Kniesler

Reorganizing the DPW in Iraq

A Soldier modifies a manhole to add to an existing drainage 

system to accommodate the COB’s expanding needs.
April-June 2008 Engineer 55

mission requirements. Independent government 

estimates and engineering designs should be 

developed by experienced engineers who know 

the facilities business. Contract oversight is still 

required by the customer to ensure that services are 

delivered. 

Long-Term Solutions Required

Since U.S. forces were working in a tactical 

environment, originally it was believed that 

long-term solutions were not required. The 

relatively short deployment cycles of Army and Air 

Force DPW units helped perpetuate that outlook. 

Those cycles focused on providing immediate 

needs and responding to the tactical fight, rather 

than planning for future requirements. The longterm focus has been provided by the Multinational 

Corps–Iraq (MNC-I) engineer staff (C7) in the 

development of some military construction 

(MILCON) projects such as power plants and 

incinerators. The result of this is a lack of focus on 

some installation-level infrastructure concerns such 

as water distribution, storm water management, and 

other issues that require a longer-term approach to 

design and construction. 

I believe that the cause of these problems is 

the lack of a professional DPW staff that is sized 

appropriately for the COB population. The Army should 

provide a phased approach to a civilian DPW with a military 

director. This approach would be no different from the 

evolution of support in Bosnia or for the bases in Kuwait. 

Early in the Iraq War, FETs were deployed to Kuwait as the 

DPW cell for bases there, and that support was phased out 

by Army Central Command as those bases evolved. The 

target for implementation of the phased plan in Iraq should be 

fiscal year 2009, which would correspond to the current FET 

deployments. This DPW organization could work for either 

the theater engineer or the corps support command.

The initial step is for the FET and mayor’s section to 

hire civilian engineers (either vetted local nationals or 

expatriates) to augment the DPW workforce. The hiring 

of local nationals could provide a secure environment 

for professionals to return to Iraq with opportunities 

for long-term employment. Positions required would 

include construction management professionals and 

design engineers of all disciplines. This would facilitate 

improvement of services on those COBs that have FETs, 

allowing for a complete implementation of the current 

plan to have the FETs provide services in general support 

to the support command and multinational divisions. By 

thickening the engineer force with additional workers, 

Army and Air Force engineers could leave the COB work 

to a civilian workforce and focus their own efforts on the 

more remote forward operating bases (FOBs) and combat 

outposts that need engineering assistance. 

The follow-on organization should be developed by the 

theater engineer and Army Central Command to manage 

this high-cost area of infrastructure support. A Directorate 

of Facilities Engineering-Iraq, headed by a colonel and 

charged with management of the COBs in Iraq, should be 

established. Initially, this could be an expanded engineering 

and reconstruction (G7) section of the corps support 

command, providing logistics support to the major COBs. 

“The LOGCAP contract provides the 

basis for obtaining critical logistic 

and life sustainment services in the 

operational environment.”

Unmarked buried utilities create a challenge for trenching operations during base improvements.

(continued on page 76)

This management task should include authority for the 

operations and maintenance budget, which would provide 

central management, command emphasis, and visibility of 

the costs associated with the COBs. In addition, this new 

directorate should be the conduit of good ideas from one 

COB to another and the repository of successful statements 

of work for service contracts. The force structure would 

include officers who would report to the directorate but work 

for each COB. These officers would manage a civilian DPW 

organization consisting of Department of the Army civilians 

and contractors (or local national workers, as appropriate). 
56 Engineer April-June 2008

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description 

(and Current Status)

Publications Currently Under Revision

FM 3-34 Engineer Operations 10 Mar 03

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)

This is the engineer keystone manual. It 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.

Revision Highlights: Modular engineer force (MEF), warfighting 

functions, explosive ordnance clearance agent (EOCA), and the 

maneuver enhancement brigade (MEB).

Status: Under revision in FY 08. 

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

Combat Engineering

This new manual will encompass engineer operations in support of 

brigade combat teams (BCTs) (heavy, infantry, and Stryker–the armored 

cavalry regiment) and their primary subordinate units (infantry battalion, 

Stryker battalion, combined arms battalion, and the reconnaissance 

squadron). This manual will supersede FM 3-34.221, FM 5-7-30, 

FM 5-71-2, and FM 5-71-3. 

Revision highlights: MEF and warfighting functions.

Status: Preparing the approved final draft for staffing.

FM 3-34.23 

(FM 5-116)

(FM 5-100-15)

(FM 5-71-100)

Engineer Operations 

– Echelons Above Brigade 

Combat Team

Pending

(Feb 99)

(Jun 95)

(Apr 93)

This is a new manual that will encompass engineer operations in support 

of all engineer operations above the BCTs (division, corps, and echelons 

above corps). The intent is to consolidate and revise three engineer 

FMs that provide doctrinal guidance for the entire spectrum of engineer 

operations supporting echelons above the BCT level.

This manual will supersede FM 5-71-100, FM 5-100-15, and FM 5-116.

Revision Highlights: MEF, warfighting functions, and MEB considerations.

Status: Preparing the initial draft for staffing.

This is a full revision, to include renaming and renumbering of FM 3-34.2, 

Combined Arms Breaching Operations. Changes in the force structure 

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

associated with breaching and clearance operations.

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

crossing, combat roads and trails, forward aviation combat engineering 

[FACE]), improvised explosive devices (IEDs), urban breaching, and 

warfighting functions.

Status: In final draft

FM 3-90.12 

(FM 90-13)

Combined Arms Gap Crossing 

Operations

Jan 98 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. Changes in the 

force structure have required that the TTP associated with river crossing 

be adjusted. The revised manual incorporates considerations for all gap 

crossing operations, not just river crossings.
April-June 2008 Engineer 57

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description 

(and Current Status)

Combat Engineering (continued)

FM 3-90.12 

(FM 90-13)

Combined Arms Gap Crossing 

Operations (continued)

Jan 98

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center 

Training and Doctrine Development Department 

Doctrine Division, Engineer Branch

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

FM 3-90.13 

(FM 5-102)

(FM 90-7)

Combined Arms Obstacle 

Integration

Sep 94; 

Mar 85

FM 3-34.170 

(FM 5-170)

Engineer Reconnaissance May 98

Revision Highlights: MEF, engineer reconnaissance, gap crossing 

definitions, and warfighting functions.

Status: The estimated posting to Army Knowledge Online (AKO) is 

Summer 2008.

This revised manual will contain the fundamentals associated with 

countermobility operations and will incorporate aspects of the 

contemporary operating environment (COE).

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 

Revision Highlights: Introduces infrastructure reconnaissance 

(assessment and survey), environmental reconnaissance (assessment 

and survey), engineer reconnaissance teams, field force engineering 

(FFE), and other reachback mechanisms.

Status: Recently published on AKO.

FM 3-34.300 

(FM 5-103)

Survivability Jun 85 This manual provides survivability information needed by commanders and 

staff at the tactical level. It includes guidance on integrating survivability 

into planning and order production and creation of the engineer running 

estimate. It provides examples of a survivability capabilities card, matrix, 

and timeline to assist with the planning, revision, and conduct of specific 

survivability tasks.

Revision Highlights: Protection, hardening, antiterrorism considerations, 

and warfighting functions.

Status: On hold for release of FM 3-10.

FM 3-34.281

(FM 20-11)

Military Diving Jan 99 This manual, formerly an adaptation of the Navy diving manual, will 

support one of the modular units of the MEF. Within the Army, it is used 

by special operations forces, as well as engineer divers.

Revision Highlights: 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.

Status: Developing the program directive.

FM 3-34.400 

(FM 5-104)

General Engineering Nov 86 This manual describes the operational environment (OE) and how to 

apply and integrate general engineering principals in support of full 

spectrum operations. It focuses on the establishment and maintenance of 

lines of communications and engineer support to sustainment operations 

throughout the area of operation. Although not designated as a multiService publication, it is intended to inform all Service components of the 

types of general engineering tasks, planning considerations, the variety of 

units available to perform them, and the capabilities of Army engineers to 

accomplish them. 

General Engineering
58 Engineer April-June 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 3-34.410

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

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. The Navy 

plans to adopt it as well.

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: Staffing the program directive and developing the initial draft.

FM 3-34.428

(FM 5-424)

Theater of Operations 

Electrical Systems

Jun 97 This manual is a reference and training guide for engineer personnel 

responsible for planning and executing theater of operations (TO) 

construction. It provides practical information for military personnel in 

the design, layout, installation, and maintenance of exterior and interior 

electrical wiring, and power-generation and distribution systems.

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.

FM 3-34.451

(FM 5-472)

Materials Testing Dec 92 This manual will provide technical information for obtaining samples and 

performing engineering tests and calculations on soils, bituminous paving 

mixtures, and concrete. For use in military construction. The test procedures 

and terminology will 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.

Revision highlights: It is 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: Staffing the program directive and developing the initial draft.

Revision Highlights: Infrastructure reconnaissance, FFE (reachback), 

homeland support, MEF, and warfighting functions.

Status: Estimated posting to AKO is Summer 2008.

FM 3-34.400 

(FM 5-104)

General Engineering 

(continued)

Nov 86

FM 3-34.465 

(FM 3-34.465 

& FM 3-34.468)

Quarry Operations Mar 05; 

Dec 03 

(Apr 94)

This manual outlines the methods and procedures used in the exploration 

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

Revision Highlights: This manual outlines the methods and procedures 

used in the exploration for and operation of pits and quarries. It provides 

information on 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.

Status: Staffing the program directive and initiating development of the 

initial draft.
April-June 2008 Engineer 59

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 3-34.469 

(FM 5-484)

Multi-Service Well Drilling 

Operations

Mar 94 This manual is a guide 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.

Revision Highlights: This collaborative effort with the Navy, and 

possible Air Force participation, includes the newest technologies, current 

practices, and revised formulas.

Status: Staffing the program directive and developing initial draft.

FM 3-34.485 

(FM 5-415)

Firefighting Operations Feb 99 This manual gives directions on deploying and using engineer firefighting 

teams. These teams provide fire prevention/protection, aircraft crash/

rescue, natural cover, and hazardous material (HAZMAT) (incident) 

responses within a TO.

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.

FM 3-34.500 

(FM 3-100.4)

Environmental Considerations 

in Military Operations

Jun 00 This manual provides environmental protection procedures during all 

types of operations. It states the purposes of military environmental 

protection, a description of legal requirements, and a summary of current 

military programs. It also describes how to apply risk management 

methods to identify actions that may harm the environment and 

appropriate steps to prevent or mitigate damage.

Revision Highlights: The revision will contain information and lessons 

learned from current operations. It will continue to be a dual-designated 

manual with Marine Corps involvement.

Status: Editing the final electronic file, then perform quality control; 

forward to Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate (CADD), with an 

estimated posting to AKO as Fall 2008.

Geospatial Engineering

NOTE: All current engineer publications can be accessed and downloaded in electronic format from the Reimer Digital Library at <http://www.adtdl.army.mil/>or the Engineer Doctrine MSKN website at <https://www.us.army.mil/suite/

page/500629>. 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 <jeffery.beacham@us.army.mil>. The development status of these manuals was current as of 28 May 2008.

FM 3-34.600 

(FM 3-34-230)

Geospatial Operations 3 Aug 00 This full revision of FM 3-34.230, Geospatial Operations, will incorporate 

changes as a result of FM 3-34, Engineer Operations, and FM 3-0 

Operations. Geospatial engineering consists of those engineer 

capabilities and activities that contribute to a clear understanding of the 

physical environment by providing geospatial information and service to 

commanders and staffs.

Revision Highlights: Terrain analysis; terrain geospatial data 

management; baseline survey data; identification of significant cultural 

sites and natural resources and force bed-down analysis.

Status: Doctrine development contract awarded; initiating program 

directive.
60 Engineer April-June 2008
April-June 2008 Engineer 61

Each session of the Engineer Captain’s Career Course 

(ECCC) is required to write an article analyzing a historical 

battle, and the best overall professional article receives the 

Thomas Jefferson Writing Excellence Award. This article was 

judged the best article of ECCC 4-07.

For the paratroopers of Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) John 

Frost’s 2d Parachute Battalion, success in Operation 

Market Garden must have seemed almost inevitable. 

After an unopposed daylight jump, they were greeted in the 

Dutch village of Heavedorp—not by German opposition but 

by throngs of civilians who paraded them through the streets 

as liberators. Despite this auspicious beginning, LTC Frost 

and his entire battalion would be lost within three days and 

the remainder of the British 1st Airborne Division would be 

forced into a desperate retreat back across the Rhine River. 

Operation Market Garden was a World War II attempt 

by Allied airborne and ground troops to capture a series of 

bridges over Dutch waterways in order to open a way across 

the Rhine River into the Ruhr Valley, Germany’s industrial 

heartland. It was the largest airborne operation of the war and 

the costliest. The British assault on the Dutch town of Arnhem 

was the biggest failure of the operation because the British 

landed too far from their targets and German defenses were 

much stronger than expected. Of the 10,000 British airborne 

troops who landed around Arnhem, 1,130 were killed and 

6,450 were captured.1

Battle for Arnhem

The battle for Arnhem (17-26 September 1944) was 

fought between the 1st Airborne Division under the 

command of Major General (MG) R.E. Urquhart and 

hastily formed elements of the German Kampfgruppe (KG) 

(or Task Force) Hohenstauffen, commanded by LTC Walther 

Harzer. The outcome of the battle was unexpected, primarily 

because of the original comparison of forces. The 1st 

Airborne Division was a fully manned division, comprising 

three British airborne brigades, an airlanding brigade, and a 

Polish parachute brigade in reserve. KG Hohenstauffen was a 

division on paper only, with a true strength of little over 3,500 

men.2 In reality, it was the battle-worn remnants of the 9th 

Schutzstaffel (SS) Panzer Division Hohenstauffen.

There were several reasons for the stunning defeat. 

The British forces were unable to achieve surprise 

and concentration early in the battle, allowing the German 

defenders to set the tempo of the battle. 

MG Urquhart, commander of the British division, lost 

command and control of the battle at a very crucial 

point. 

■

■
62 Engineer April-June 2008

The Germans, because of the experience of their 

commander, were able to correctly identify and attack 

the airborne force’s center of gravity.

First Key Event

The first key event in this battle—the fact that the British 

first wave consisted of only half of the 1st Airborne Division 

and was forced to land 7 to 9 kilometers from Arnhem—

emphasizes the importance of concentration and surprise to 

an offensive. Field Manual (FM) 3-0, Operations, defines 

four characteristics of offensive operations:3

Surprise

Concentration

Tempo

Audacity

It states that surprise is achieved by attacking at a time or 

place or in a manner for which the enemy is unprepared and 

cautions that tactical surprise is fleeting and must be exploited 

before the enemy can react.4 Concentration is “the massing 

of overwhelming effects of combat power to achieve a single 

purpose.”5 In addressing tempo, the FM states that “a faster 

tempo allows attackers to disrupt enemy defenses quicker 

■

■

■

■

■

than the enemy can respond.”6 Audacity “is a simple plan of 

action, boldly executed.”7

Causes. The causes of this first key event lie primarily 

in the planning of the operation. From the outset, Allied air 

forces did not have sufficient gliders and transport aircraft 

to move the entire division in one lift. This deficiency 

was compounded by the fact that the division was forced 

to give up a battalion’s worth of lift assets in order to tow 

elements of the corps headquarters, a force whose presence 

at the front was largely unnecessary.8 In an effort to allay 

the shortage of aircraft, commanders from all the divisions 

involved suggested that two troop lifts be performed on the 

first day, thus doubling the initial troop strengths. However, 

the Allied air transport commander, United States Army Air 

Force (USAAF) MG Paul Williams, refused, claiming that 

his air crews would be exhausted and that his ground crews 

would need time to repair the damage he expected the aircraft 

to suffer during the first landings.9 USAAF concerns also 

forced the landings to more distant drop zones (DZs) and 

landing zones (LZs) since it was feared that zones nearer to 

Arnhem would expose the transports to German antiaircraft 

(AA) fire.10 

The multilift concept of Operation Market Garden did 

not simply mean that MG Urquhart had fewer forces on 

the ground. Because the lifts would be 

accomplished over several days, it was 

necessary for the 1st Airlanding Brigade 

under BG Philip Hicks to secure the DZs/

LZs in the interim to prevent German 

counterattacks against vulnerable 

landing forces.11 Thus, of four brigades 

under his command, MG Urquhart’s 

initial attacking force consisted of 

only the 1st Parachute Brigade under 

BG Gerald Lathbury.12 By dividing an 

already diminished force, MG Urquhart 

had effectively sacrificed his ability to 

concentrate forces toward the attack into 

Arnhem. This would prove especially 

detrimental since poor weather at the 

departure airfields would delay the 

landing of the British second wave by 

almost nine hours, 13 and would ground 

MG Stanislaw Sosabowski’s Polish 

Parachute Brigade for two days.14

Had it not been for the great distances 

between the DZs/LZs and Arnhem, 

it might have been possible for MG 

Urquhart to overcome his initial lack 

of forces by moving swiftly into the 

city and securing defensive positions 

around the bridge. By all accounts, the 

German defenders were not expecting 

an airborne operation at Arnhem. As 

the first wave landed, LTC Harzer was 

Soldiers of the 1st Airlanding Brigade take up positions on the outskirts of 

Arnhem on 18 September 1944. The Soldier on the left is manning a British 

antitank weapon, a Projector, Infantry, Antitank (PIAT).

Photo courtesy of the Imperial War Museum, London No. BU 001144
April-June 2008 Engineer 63

attending a military parade,15 while 

Captain (CPT) Sepp Krafft and his 

SS training battalion—which would 

quickly become the cornerstone of 

the German defense—were merely 

conducting training exercises west 

of Arnhem. 16

Unfortunately, the distance between the DZs/LZs and Arnhem, 

combined with the fact that most 

of his forces were dismounted, prevented MG Urquhart from properly 

exploiting the initial surprise of the 

attack. By the time the battalions of 

1st Parachute Brigade were formed 

and ready to move, CPT Krafft had 

already placed two of his companies 

into hasty defensive positions and 

called up his third company as a 

reserve.17 This would prove crucial 

since his blocking position would 

blunt the advance of both 1st and 

3d Parachute Battalions, giving the 

Germans time to reinforce Arnhem 

and control the tempo of the battle to 

their advantage. 

Lesson Learned. The lesson 

to be drawn from this event is that the attacking force must 

immediately seize the initiative, set a faster tempo in the 

battle, and keep the defender off guard for an offensive 

operation to be successful. Failure to do so will give the 

defender an opportunity to slow the tempo, improve their 

defenses, and redistribute combat power to the points of 

attack. Attacking forces can gain the initiative by achieving 

surprise and massing combat power quickly against key 

defensive points.

Second Key Event

The 1st Airborne Division’s inability to attain 

surprise was further hampered by a second key event: 

documents detailing the 101st Airborne Division’s orders 

for Operation Market (the airborne portion of Operation 

Market Garden) were recovered by the Germans and 

delivered to General (GEN) Kurt Student’s headquarters.18 

Beyond the obvious operations security (OPSEC) 

implications, this event and GEN Student’s swift 

reaction emphasized the importance of identifying and 

attacking an enemy’s center of gravity to achieve victory. 

FM 3-0, in discussing operational design, defines a 

center of gravity as “those characteristics, capabilities, 

or localities from which a military force derives its 

freedom of action, physical strength, or will to fight.”19 

Moreover, it states that identifying and neutralizing an 

enemy’s center of gravity is the “most direct path to 

victory.” 20

Cause. The cause of this event was simply a blatant 

OPSEC violation. The documents were discovered on the 

body of an American officer whose glider had been shot 

down near GEN Student’s headquarters in Vught.21 Although 

the documents did not include any information on the 1st 

Airborne Division’s mission, GEN Student was able to 

combine the information from them with the reports he had 

received on the landings to determine that the bridges were 

the Allied objectives. The capture of this information would 

prove especially catastrophic for the Allies because of GEN 

Student’s experience in leading German airborne operations 

in Italy and Holland.22 He knew that an airborne force’s center 

of gravity lay in its ability to strike quickly and exploit the 

element of surprise to secure objectives. He also understood 

that airborne forces had two inherent vulnerabilities: They 

would be comparatively lightly equipped and would have 

no established lines of communication, relying instead on 

aerial resupply and reinforcement. His defensive plan was 

thus based on two objectives: slow the British forces until 

KG Hohenstauffen could be reinforced with more men and 

heavier armaments, and seize the British DZs/LZs to interdict 

aerial resupply and reinforcement.

In order to wage an effective defense, it was first necessary 

for the Germans to organize several disparate company-size 

British Soldiers march with their vehicles and equipment along a road toward 

Arnhem.

Photo courtesy of the Imperial War Museum, London No. BU 001091
64 Engineer April-June 2008

elements operating in the Arnhem area into KGs. Within hours 

of the landing, two such task forces had already begun to 

form. KG Spindler, initially comprising CPT Krafft’s training 

battalion, an engineer company, and an artillery battery, was 

tasked with establishing a defensive line west of Arnhem.23

Similarly, KG von Tettau—formed from such varied units as 

a battalion of Dutch SS troops, an artillery unit with no guns, 

and students of an SS noncommissioned officers academy 

at Arnhem—was tasked with seizing the British DZs/LZs.24

Although both KGs were skeletal at first, GEN Student 

pushed for and received reinforcements over the course of 

the next five days, again capitalizing on his ability to slow the 

tempo of the battle.

Although the Germans assumed a great deal of tactical 

risk in incorporating these loosely organized units into their 

defensive plan, it proved worthwhile. KG Spindler, with CPT 

Krafft’s battalion, halted the advance of 1st and 3d Parachute 

Battalions, effectively isolating LTC Frost’s 2d Parachute 

Battalion from immediate resupply or reinforcement. 25 The 

efforts of KG von Tettau to isolate the British 1st Airborne 

Division as a whole proved equally effective. Over the course 

of the battle, it is estimated that only 7.4 percent of Allied 

resupply drops were successful.26 The remainder dropped 

onto DZs/LZs that had been recaptured by the Germans or 

fell victim to German AA fires, 

which were steadily reinforced 

throughout the fighting. Allied 

reinforcements fared no better. 

On 19 September, a portion 

of MG Sosabowski’s Polish 

Parachute Brigade, traveling 

in 35 gliders, touched down 

in an LZ still under German 

control. Only two antiaircraft 

guns and a small contingent 

of men survived the landing.27

Although the remainder of 

MG Sosabowski’s brigade 

eventually landed south of the 

Rhine, it would be another four 

days before it could cross the 

river and reinforce the British 

forces, as all crossing assets 

were located with the Allied 

ground forces in Nijmegen.28

Lessons Learned. The 

most obvious lesson from this 

event is the need to maintain 

OPSEC at all times. Especially 

in today’s contemporary 

environment—where volumes 

of data on operations, units, 

and Soldiers can be stored in a 

single memory stick—constant 

vigilance is required on the 

part of every leader to ensure that information is properly 

safeguarded. A second and equally important lesson is the 

value of correctly identifying and neutralizing the enemy’s 

center of gravity while protecting one’s own. As with the 

Germans at Arnhem, doing so can overcome disadvantages 

in technology, manpower, or firepower that would otherwise 

prove overwhelming. 

Third Key Event

In addition to isolating LTC Frost’s 2d Parachute Battalion, 

KG Spindler’s defense against 1st and 3d Parachute Battalions 

inadvertently contributed to the final key event of the battle. 

As 3d Parachute Battalion fell back, both MG Urquhart and 

BG Lathbury were forced to take refuge in an attic. In one 

instant, the division’s two top commanders were denied the 

ability to command and control their forces.

Causes. MG Urquhart’s presence so close to the front can 

be traced back to communications problems that had plagued 

the 1st Airborne Division from the beginning of the operation. 

The radios the British forces were using proved largely 

unreliable, rendering MG Urquhart unable to communicate 

with Major (MAJ) Freddie Gough, his reconnaissance 

battalion commander, or BG Lathbury and 1st Parachute 

Brigade.29 Frustrated with his inability to monitor the progress 

British prisoners march away under guard of their German captors. Some 6,450 of 

the 10,000 British paratroopers who landed at Arnhem were taken prisoner. (German 

photograph) 

Photo courtesy of the Imperial War Museum, London No. HU 002129
April-June 2008 65 Engineer

of his main effort, MG Urquhart left his headquarters and 

eventually linked up with BG Lathbury, who was advancing 

with 3d Parachute Battalion. Communication problems had 

also forced BG Lathbury to leave his headquarters and join his 

main effort. When 3d Parachute Battalion’s advance against 

KG Spindler was halted, BG Lathbury was wounded, forcing 

MG Urquhart to move him into a local residence, where both 

men became trapped behind an advancing German defensive 

line.30 Ironically, the British communications problems could 

have been alleviated by effective use of the Dutch telephone 

system, which continued in service during the battle.

MG Urquhart’s absence rendered his headquarters unable 

to give guidance at a critical decision point. As MG Urquhart 

joined 3d Parachute Battalion, LTC Frost’s men reported 

finding a ferry west of Arnhem.31 Securing the ferry could have 

negated the need to enter Arnhem, since it could have provided 

a viable crossing for the Allied ground forces. However, 

because it was not originally listed as an objective for LTC 

Frost, and because no command decision was issued after its 

discovery, the ferry was bypassed. Eventually a sympathetic 

local cut the ferry free so it would not fall into German 

hands.32 More importantly, however, the loss of contact with 

MG Urquhart and BG Lathbury forced BG Hicks to assume 

command.33 BG Hicks, who had been securing the DZs/LZs, 

lacked an accurate picture of the fighting in Arnhem and had to 

assume that reinforcing LTC Frost directly was the main effort. 

Thus he committed three battalions into a constricted, 200-

meter corridor referred to as the Den Brink Area. 34 This would 

prove a costly mistake, first because the area was bordered to 

the north by high ground and to the south by the Rhine River, 

providing barely enough room for a company to maneuver, let 

alone three battalions.35 Secondly, the Germans had already 

arrayed a devastating amount of force along the corridor. To 

the north, an AA company and an engineer battalion reinforced 

with heavy weapons occupied houses along the high ground. 

Along the southern bank of the river, a reconnaissance battalion 

with heavy weapons occupied a brickworks building. Both had 

excellent fields of fire over the Den Brink Area.36 The three 

British battalions marched headlong into a defeat so costly 

that 1st Airborne Division would not have the manpower for 

another attempt at reinforcing LTC Frost.

Lesson Learned. The lesson from this event is the 

importance of communications in developing situational 

understanding on the battlefield, and the importance of 

positioning a commander so that he can best influence the 

fight. Leaders should lead as far forward as possible, but they 

must maintain adequate communications so that their forward 

position does not hinder their understanding of the big picture. 

Additionally, it emphasizes the necessity of performing proper 

precombat checks on all vital systems.

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

Army Forces, discusses the importance of communications 

to commanders, stating that shortfalls must be corrected 

to provide full information in order to develop accurate 

situational understanding.37 It advises that modern information 

systems can help commanders command forward without 

losing situational understanding.38 However, without effective 

information flow, commanders at the front risk becoming 

overly focused on the fight immediately ahead of them and 

losing sight of the bigger picture. 39

The vital bridge at Arnhem after the British paratroops had been driven back. (German photograph)

Photo courtesy of the Imperial War Museum, London No. HU 002127
66 Engineer April-June 2008

Summary

The 1st Airborne Division’s plan in Operation Market 

Garden represented a tenuous balance between the 

chance of achieving a great tactical success and 

the risk of a crushing operational defeat. Although British 

paratroopers would be conducting a surprise attack against 

an unsuspecting and demoralized force, they would also be 

the furthest forward, isolated from the nearest ground forces 

by nearly 100 kilometers.40 The Allied defeat was ultimately 

a result of failure to capitalize on initial tactical advantage. 

By placing the concerns of the air forces ahead of the ground 

tactical plan, the Allies sacrificed both the element of surprise 

and the ability to concentrate forces on the objective, allowing 

the Germans to slow the tempo of the battle almost to a halt. 

This, in turn, allowed the Germans to isolate the 1st Airborne 

Division logistically. As the Germans received a consistent 

flow of reinforcements and supply from the rear, the British 

grew dangerously short of men and resources. To compound 

problems, MG Urquhart was removed from the fight at 

a crucial point without having established a clear chain of 

command or leaving a clear intent with his headquarters. 

As a result, the 1st Airborne Division committed the bulk of 

its forces into a disastrous attack into the Den Brink Area. 

This resulted in a defeat so costly that the paratroopers had 

no choice but to form a defensive perimeter and endure 

through the painfully slow advance of the Allied ground 

forces. Unfortunately, the wait would prove too long for LTC 

Frost and the men of 2d Parachute Battalion. With casualties 

mounting, and ammunition, food, water, and medical supplies 

growing scarce, the battalion could hold out no longer. Almost 

all of its surviving Soldiers were taken prisoner. 

Captain Hoyer, now with the 10th Mountain Division, has 

served as a platoon leader, battalion adjutant, and company 

executive officer at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He has been 

deployed to both Afghanistan and Iraq. A graduate of the 

United States Military Academy, he has also completed the 

Engineer Officer Basic Course, the Engineer Captains Career 

Course, the Sapper Leader Course, and Jumpmaster School.

Works Cited

Badsey, Stephen. Arnhem 1944, Operation Market Garden. 

London: Osprey Publishing Limited, 1993.

Clark, Lloyd. Arnhem: Operation Market Garden, 

September 1944. Phoenix Mill: Sutton Publishing Limited, 

2002.

FM 3-0, Operations, 14 June 2001.

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

Army Forces, 11 August 2003.

Kershaw, Robert. It Never Snows in September: The 

German View of Market Garden and the Battle of Arnhem, 

New York: Hippocrene Books, 1994.

Tugwell, Maurice. Arnhem: A Case Study. London: 

Thornton Cox Limited, 1975.

Endnotes

1 United Kingdom National Archives, “Operation Market Garden,”

2 September 2004, <http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/news/stories/40.

htm>, accessed 30 January 2008.

2

 Robert Kershaw “It Never Snows in September: The German

View of Market Garden and the Battle of Arnhem, September 

1944,” Hippocrene Books, New York, 1994, p. 16.

3

 FM 3-0, Operations, 13 June 2001, p. 7-4.

4

 Ibid.

5

 Ibid., p. 7-5.

6

 Ibid., p. 7-6.

7

 Ibid.

8

 Maurice Tugwell, “Arnhem: A Case Study,” Thornton Cox Limited, 

London, 1975, p. 26.

9

 Lloyd Clark, “Arnhem: Operation Market Garden, September 1944,”

Phoenix Mill, U.K., Sutton Publishing Limited, 2002, p. 22.

10 Tugwell, p. 25.

11 Clark, p. 54.

12 Stephen Badsey, “Arnhem 1944, Operation Market Garden,” Osprey 

Publishing Limited, London, 1993, p. 43.

13 Clark, p. 100.

14 Badsey, pp. 55, 59.

15 Kershaw, p. 60.

16 Ibid., p. 72.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid., 71.

19 FM 3-0, p. 5-7.

20 Ibid.

21 Kershaw, p. 71.

22 Ibid., p. 115.

23 Ibid., p. 103.

24 Ibid., p. 113.

25 Ibid., p. 73.

26 Badsey, p. 85.

27 Ibid., p. 57.

28 Ibid., pp. 71, 76.

29 Ibid., p. 43.

30 Ibid., p. 49.

31 Clark, p. 67.

32 Ibid.

33 Badsey, p. 54.

34 Kershaw, p. 165.

35 Ibid.

36 Badsey, p. 25.

37 FM 6-0, Mission Command, 11 August 2003, p. 3-17.

38 Ibid., p. 4-26.
April-June 2008 Engineer 67

The President’s Hundred Tab is awarded to Soldiers for 

shooting exceptionally well with either the service 

pistol or rifle during the President’s Hundred Match, 

an event that is held annually at Camp Perry, Ohio, during the 

months of July and August. The event is open to all Service 

members, as well as civilians and law enforcement personnel. 

The Civilian Marksmanship Program has overall control and 

responsibility for the competition. Each year, approximately 

600 people register for the pistol match and 1,200 for the rifle 

match. Historically, this is a military match so only United 

States Army Service weapons that use iron sights with ball 

ammunition are allowed, although weapons should be match 

grade to be competitive. 

Pistol shooters fire 40 bullets with either the M1911

(.45-caliber) or the M9 (9-millimeter) pistol held in one hand. 

There are three phases of the pistol competition: slow fire, 

timed fire, and rapid fire.

During the slow-fire portion, competitors shoot ten bullets 

at 50 yards in 10 minutes, and then the shots are scored;

this is repeated in a second round.

During the timed-fire portion, the match transitions to

the 25-yard line, where competitors shoot two strings of

five bullets in 20 seconds. These shots are scored after

ten shots.

During the rapid-fire portion, competitors shoot another

ten bullets, but in 10-second strings of five bullets each.

Like before, the shots are scored after ten shots. The

scores are tallied and the cut line is drawn. 

Usually, a score above 350 out of 400 will get a

competitor near the cut line. The top 100 competitors 

are awarded the President’s Hundred Tab with 

permanent orders. Soldiers wear the tab according 

to Army Regulation 670-1, Wear and Appearance 

of Army Uniforms and Insignia, paragraph 29-16c.

Rifle shooters can use any rifle made in the United States 

that was used by the military since the inception of the 

matches. Most competitive shooters compete with a match 

grade version of the M-16A2. The rifle competition consists 

of three phases.

■

■

■

■

In the first phase, shooters are given 10 minutes to fire the

first ten shots at 200 yards standing.

In the second phase, shooters are given 70 seconds to fire

ten shots at 300 yards. They begin in the standing position 

and move into the prone position, making a magazine

change after the second bullet.

In the third phase, shooters are given 10 minutes to

fire ten shots at 600 yards in the prone position.

Scoring is completed after each phase, and awards

are handled the same as the pistol match. Usually,

a score above 280 out of 300 will get a competitor near

the cut line. 

Soldiers are competing against all shooters, regardless 

of competency or whether they have already been awarded 

a tab. Soldiers can earn multiple President’s Hundred 

Tabs throughout their career—for both pistol and rifle 

competition—although there is no difference in the tabs. 

Each year, 100 tabs are awarded for both the pistol and the 

rifle competitions during the President’s Hundred Match. The 

winners of the matches receive several awards, one of which 

is a signed letter from the President of the United States. More 

information can be found at <http://www.odcmp.com>. 

Major Miller is a student at the Command and General 

Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He has served 

in the 307th Engineer Battalion as a platoon leader, in the 

44th Engineer Battalion in Korea as the supply officer and 

company commander, and in the United States Army Corps 

of Engineers as a construction program manager in Mobile, 

Alabama. He holds a bachelor’s in mechanical engineering 

from the University of Iowa and a master’s in engineering 

management from the University of Missouri-Rolla. An avid 

pistol and rifle shooter, he has been awarded the Excellence 

in Competition Pistol Shot (Bronze) Marksmanship Badge.

■

■

■

■

By Major William J. Miller

Earning the President’s 

Hundred Tab
68 Engineer April-June 2008

The fundamentals of marksmanship are some of 

the most important skills a Soldier will learn. The 

competitive marksmanship program, a long-standing 

tradition, was instituted in the aftermath of the Civil War by 

the United States Army. In 1884, General Phillip H. Sheridan 

formalized it when he designated distinguished marksmen 

with General Order 12. Originally, Soldiers could earn the 

Distinguished Marksmanship Badge with the rifle, pistol, or 

carbine. Eventually, the pistol competition separated itself 

from the rifle competition, and the first United States Army 

Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge was awarded in 1903. The 

United States Army Distinguished Rifleman Badge was 

created, and the Distinguished Marksmanship Badge was 

no longer awarded. The early badges, along with the Medal 

of Honor, were the only decorations authorized to be worn 

on the Army uniform. Although there are greater symbols 

of excellent marksmanship (such as the Distinguished 

International Shooter Badge or Olympic Medals), these 

distinguished badges can generally be earned by applying 

the fundamentals of marksmanship and remaining cool under 

pressure. 

Excellence in Competition Points

Soldiers earn the Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge after 

earning 30 Excellence in Competition (EIC) points, 

also known as leg points or legs. These EIC points are 

earned through a series of specific marksmanship competitions 

held throughout the year and are cumulative in nature. After 

earning their first leg, Soldiers are awarded the Excellence 

in Competition Pistol Shot (Bronze) Marksmanship Badge, a 

permanent award accompanied by orders. It is only awarded 

from the commander of the Army Marksmanship Unit 

By Major William J. Miller

Earning the Distinguished 

Pistol Shot Badge

Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge

Earning the Distinguished

Pistol Shot Badge
April-June 2008 Engineer 69

(AMU) at Fort Benning, Georgia. The AMU maintains the 

records of approximately 25,000 Soldiers who have obtained 

EIC points at some point in their career for either the pistol 

or rifle.1

 Soldiers are awarded the Excellence in Competition 

Pistol Shot (Silver) Marksmanship Badge once 20 EIC points 

are earned. 

Points are awarded based on the shooter’s placement in 

a competition relative to other nondistinguished shooters. 

A nondistinguished shooter is one who hasn’t earned the 

Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge. So, while the shooter 

may be competing against some of the best shooters in the 

country, who are more than likely already recipients of the 

distinguished pistol badge, a nondistinguished shooter will 

only be awarded legs based on his performance against other 

nondistinguished shooters. This was a condition that General 

Sheridan specified when he established the program to 

encourage new marksmen to compete and not get discouraged 

by the talents of more experienced marksmen. 

For any of these EIC competitions, a Soldier will be 

awarded 6, 8, or 10 points based on his placement in the top 

10 percent of nondistinguished shooters. In one competition 

geared toward introductory shooters at Fort Benning, Georgia, 

a shooter can only earn 4 points regardless of the placement 

in the top 10 percent, and the shooter must not have been 

awarded any pistol legs prior to the match. All National Guard 

State Championship matches are 4-point leg matches. Only 

the top 10 percent of nondistinguished match participants 

earn legs, and there must be at least ten nondistinguished 

Soldiers competing. Of the 10 percent, the top one-sixth earn 

ten points (also called gold placement or a gold leg), the next 

one-third earn eight points (silver placement or a silver leg), 

and the remaining one-half earn six points (bronze placement 

or a bronze leg). If there are going to be 100 nondistinguished 

shooters at a competition, then two gold, three silver, 

and five bronze legs will be awarded. If there are only ten 

nondistinguished competitors, then only one 6-point bronze 

leg will be awarded. It takes 25 nondistinguished competitors 

for the first 10-point gold leg to be awarded; there will also be 

one 8-point silver leg and a 6-point bronze leg awarded. 

Courses of Fire Shot

There are two courses of fire shot for EIC competition: the 

combat pistol and bull’s-eye courses of fire. 

Combat Pistol Match. This match is shot with a standard 

rack grade M-9 pistol at a range of 15 meters with two hands 

on the pistol and in full field gear. There are two stages of fire: 

standing anti-body armor and standing quick-fire multiple 

engagements. The targets are figure 11 targets, showing an 

enemy soldier running forward with an AK-47 at the position 

of port arms. 

The standing anti-body armor course of fire requires the 

Soldier to shoot two bullets into the center scoring 

rings of the target and then one in the facial scoring area 

in 6 seconds. After a 6-second pause, this is repeated for 

three more targets with a pause between each target. 

■

The standing quick-fire multiple engagement course of 

fire requires the Soldier to shoot six bullets at four targets

in 7 seconds and then 6 seconds with a pause in between. 

After quickly reloading, the Soldier fires six bullets at

three targets (two in each) in 5 seconds and then 

4 seconds, each with a pause in between. 

Scoring occurs between the two stages of fire while targets 

are repaired or replaced. A total of 180 points is possible. To 

score legs, a Soldier should score higher than 145, but in some 

competitions it can be as low as 120—this depends on who’s 

competing and range conditions. Scoring rings consist of a 

five ring out to a two ring (which is anything on the target), 

the facial scoring region is worth five points during the antibody armor stage and two during the standing quick-fire 

stage. If the facial scoring ring is missed during the anti-body 

armor stage, then no points are awarded for that entire target. 

In the spirit of the competition, competitors are not allowed to 

shoot all rounds in the facial scoring region in order to ensure 

a higher probability of scoring points on that target. 

Bull’s-Eye Match. The bull’s-eye or National Match 

Course of fire is shot one-handed with an M-9, M-11, or 

M-1911 pistol and in a modified garrison uniform. The pistols 

and ammunition can be rack or match grade depending on the 

competition rules. There are three stages of fire:

The first stage requires the Soldier to shoot ten rounds

at 50 yards in 10 minutes, and spotting scopes can be 

used to spot the impact of the round and adjust if 

needed. 

■

■

Shooting kit
70 Engineer April-June 2008

The second stage requires the Soldier to shoot a string of 

five rounds in 20 seconds two times with a controlled

pause in between. On professional ranges, the targets will 

turn perpendicular to the shooter, but a pause can be 

instituted if range conditions don’t allow for that. 

The third stage is the same as the second, except the 

strings are conducted in 10-second intervals. 

Scoring occurs between each stage. A total of 300 points 

is possible. For this reason, the match is also called a “300 

match.” To earn a leg, Soldiers generally need to score above 

■

■

260 points—this can vary considerably based on the skill level 

of the competitors. The targets are National Rifle Association 

(NRA) type B6 (50 yards) and B8 (25 yards) targets. Scoring 

rings consist of a bull’s-eye or “X” ring, a ten ring to a five 

ring. 

Sanctioned Matches

There are only certain sanctioned matches that Soldiers 

can compete in to earn their legs each year. These matches can 

either be bull’s-eye or combat pistol, but must be classified 

as an EIC match. A Soldier can only shoot in four rifle and 

Primary Excellence in Competition Matches

Installation, United States Army Reserve, or Army National Guard State Championships

Fort Benning Pistol/Rifle Competition (Fort Benning, Georgia)

Currently Fort Benning is the only installation to conduct this level of competition specifically for active duty

Soldiers. State-run competitions by the Army National Guard and United States Army Reserve are too numerous 

to list. This entry-level combat marksmanship competition, held in February, requires that competitors be stationed 

at Fort Benning or be a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet from Georgia or Alabama. There are several 

competitions conducted during this match. Only four EIC points are awarded for a leg regardless of gold, silver, 

or bronze placement. To earn the points, a Soldier must not have any pistol EIC points.

United States Army Small Arms Championships

All-Army Pistol/Rifle Competition (Fort Benning, Georgia)

To compete in this competition, the shooter must be a member of the United States Army (Active, Reserve, or 

National Guard) or an Army cadet. This is a week-long combat pistol and rifle competition that is held in March. 

Pistol and rifle classes are taught by the AMU. There are several competitions conducted, one of which is the EIC 

match for rifle and pistol.

Major Command Championships

Joint Special Operations Command Pistol/Rifle Competition (Fort Bragg, North Carolina)

This is a week-long combat pistol and bull’s-eye marksmanship competition in April. It is run similarly to the 

All-Army Competition, but with the added benefit of shooting a national match course of fire. It is one of the few 

competitions where two pistol EIC and two rifle EIC matches are shot.

First Army Commander’s Warrior Challenge (Camp Bullis, Texas)

This good, all-around pistol and rifle competition is held in May and consists of a train-the-trainer course, practice 

firing, some team matches, and a foreign weapons competition. There are several competitions conducted, one of 

which is the EIC match for rifle and pistol.

Armed Forces Championships

Interservice Pistol Competition (Fort Benning, Georgia)

This combat and bull’s-eye competition, held in June, is the best of the five Services’ best, but any Service member is eligible. A 2700-type course is fired, with a Service pistol match and combat pistol match. The EIC match is 

a National Match 300-point bull’s-eye match.

National Trophy Matches

National Trophy Pistol Match (Camp Perry, Ohio)

The best-of-the-best shooters in the country compete here (civilian, law enforcement, and military), but anyone is 

eligible to compete. It is run by the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and it is the national championship of bull’seye shooting. With more than 600 people shooting in the pistol match, there are a lot of legs awarded.

National Guard Championships

Winston P. Wilson Pistol/Rifle Competition (Camp Robinson, Arkansas)

This competition is the National Guard Championship, but all branches can compete. The EIC matches are the 

combat pistol and rifle course of fire, and normally there are about 500 competitors. The competition is held in 

October.
April-June 2008 Engineer 71

four pistol EIC matches a year, regardless if it is an Army or 

alternative match. Visit <www.usaac.army.mil/amu> to view 

upcoming Army EIC matches on the AMU website. 

Primary Matches. The table on page 70 lists the primary 

matches where Soldiers can earn EIC points.

Secondary Matches. Every branch of the military, the 

United States Coast Guard, and civilians, through the 

Civilian Marksmanship Program, have their own competitive 

marksmanship program with their distinctive awards program. 

Because of this, there are several secondary matches for 

Soldiers to earn EIC points; however, Soldiers can only earn 

20 EIC points from non-Army competitions. If Major Army 

Command (Joint Special Operations Command or 1st Army), 

All-Army, or Interservice Championships are missed, alternate 

matches can be authorized in advance through the AMU on a 

one-for-one basis after missing one of the primary matches. 

This procedure is an exception and must be coordinated 

with the AMU, otherwise hard-earned legs from non-Army 

matches may not count toward the Soldier’s Distinguished 

Pistol Shot Badge. Only two alternative matches can be shot 

per year, of which only one can be a civilian match. Some 

of the more popular alternative matches that Soldiers can 

compete in for pistol EIC points are:

Atlantic Fleet Forces Command Pistol Matches (Virginia 

Beach, Virginia)

Pacific Fleet Forces Command Pistol Matches (Camp

Pendleton, California)

All-Navy (East Coast) Pistol Championships (Virginia 

Beach, Virginia)

All-Navy (West Coast) Pistol Competition (Camp 

Pendleton, California)

Civilian Matches certified by the Civilian Marksmanship

Program

All of the marksmanship badges are worn in the same 

manner as other standard Army marksmanship badges. The 

reference for wearing these badges can be found in Army 

Regulation 670-1, Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms 

and Insignia, paragraph 29-16. Army Regulation 350-66, 

Army-Wide Small Arms Competitive Marksmanship, governs 

EIC points and procedures. 

Summary

Visit <www.odcmp.com> to view all civilian and most 

military EIC matches available to compete in; Navy 

Marksmanship Team information can be found at 

<http://www.usnst.org>. 

Earning your Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge is a 

rare occurrence and a very high honor. The process can be 

accomplished quickly with the Soldier scoring gold legs 

in three competitions or can take as long as a full career. 

As of 5 March 2008, there were 1,709 Distinguished Pistol 

Shot Badges awarded to Army personnel since 1903, with 

■

■

■

■

■

375 “double” distinguished in both weapons and 14 “triple” 

distinguished (rifle, pistol, and international).2

The highest-ranking Soldier to wear the badge is General 

John J. Pershing, who earned the Distinguished Marksmanship 

Badge with the rifle and pistol before the Distinguished 

Pistol Shot Badge was created. General Lyman L. Lemnitzer, 

who later became the Chief of Staff of the Army, earned the 

Distinguished Marksmanship Badge (Rifle). Brigadier General 

Claudius Easley earned his Distinguished Marksmanship 

Badge (Rifle), and later as the Assistant Division Commander 

of the 96th Infantry Division declared the division the 

“Deadeyes” because of their proficiency with the rifle. A 

known distance rifle range at Fort Benning is also named in 

General Easley’s honor. The highest-ranking engineer to wear 

the Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge was Major General Hugh 

J. Casey, General Douglas MacArthur’s chief engineer; he 

also earned his Distinguished Marksmanship Badge (Rifle). 

One engineer, Lieutenant Colonel Rhonda Bright, earned her 

triple designation (pistol, rifle, and international) in 2006. She 

is the second woman in the Army to achieve this honor and 

one of 14 in the Army to ever reach this goal. 

Major Miller is a student at the Command and General 

Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He has served 

in the 307th Engineer Battalion as a platoon leader, in 

the 44th Engineer Battalion in Korea as the supply officer 

and company commander, and in the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers as a construction program manager 

in Mobile, Alabama. He holds a bachelor’s in mechanical 

engineering from the University of Iowa and a master’s in 

engineering management from the University of MissouriRolla. An avid pistol and rifle shooter, he has been awarded 

the Excellence in Competition Pistol Shot (Bronze) 

Marksmanship Badge.

Endnotes

1

 Information obtained from Nancy Pool, the United 

States Army’s Excellence in Competition (EIC) awards 

program manager and a member of the United States Army 

Marksmanship Unit at Fort Benning, Georgia.

2

 Pool.

References

Army Regulation 350-66, Army-Wide Small Arms 

Competitive Marksmanship, 17 July 2003.

Dick Culver, In Distinguished Company, CSP GunTalk, 2000, 

<http://www.jouster.com/EIC/distinguished_company.htm>, 

accessed on 25 February 2008.

Hap Rocketto, “A Short History of the Distinguished Shooter Program,” 2006, <http://www.odcmp. 

com/Competitions/Distinguished_History.pdf>, accessed on 

25 February 2008.
72 Engineer April-June 2008

The World War II 

Black Regiment That 

Built the Alaska Military Highway: A Photographic History, by 

William E. Griggs, 

University Press of 

Mississippi: Jackson, 

2002, 112 pages, 

ISBN 1-57806-504-6, 

$45.00 (hardcover).

Often compared in its engineering difficulty to building the Panama Canal, construction of the Alaska-Canada

(Alcan) Highway—covering 1,523 miles—was completed in 

just over eight months in 1942, in large part by four black 

regiments of the Corps of Engineers. William E. Griggs, regimental photographer of the 97th Engineers, has captured his 

journey in The World War II Black Regiment That Built the 

Alaska Military Highway: A Photographic History. His book 

pays tribute to the men whose efforts on the Alcan Highway 

went unrecognized for 50 years. 

In what Douglas Brinkley hails in his introduction as the 

“greatest engineering feat of the Second World War,” the 97th 

finished its 194-mile section more than a year ahead of schedule, despite the severity of extreme weather; mosquitoes, 

mud, permafrost, and muskeg; segregation issues; and inadequate clothing and shelter—especially harsh for men who 

had entered the Corps in the Deep South.

The urgency in building this military road was due to the 

1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and later takeover of 

two islands at the tip of the Aleutian Chain. Since Alaska’s 

invasion seemed imminent, building a supply line became a 

priority. Even though the Japanese were successfully routed 

from the Aleutian Islands, the Alcan Highway was effectively 

used to transport thousands of airplanes to Russia via Nome 

and Fairbanks during World War II.

Each black regiment was assigned of a portion of the highway to complete. The 97th constructed the northern Alaska 

section, with its sharper extremes in temperature: -70 degrees

in winter and in the 90s during summer when, due to Alaska’s 

long days, work continued nonstop in shifts. The only two 

fatalities in the regiment involved a shooting and a Soldier 

freezing to death.

The engineers had surveyors working ten miles ahead of 

bulldozers that razed trees and cleared the path. In periods of 

thaw, vehicles got stuck in the mud constantly, requiring construction of corduroy roads (layers of logs, gravel, and sand) 

for traction. Boggy land—called muskeg, arising from permafrost conditions in Alaska—is moist soil laden with moss 

and dead plants, and in spring it behaves like quicksand for 

vehicles. This, coupled with the substandard equipment the 

black regiments received, made their achievement of completing the highway ahead of schedule a marvel.

African Americans represented about one-third of the 

troops sent to work on the highway. The U.S. Army was finally racially integrated in 1948 by Executive Order of President 

Harry Truman. However, during construction of the Alcan, 

the Army’s black Corps of Engineers, always working under 

white officers, endured prejudice and substandard treatment. 

For example, they received unserviceable trucks destined for 

salvage and clothing unsuitable for the harsh climate, as well 

as cloth tents to be used only in the wilderness—unlike their 

white counterparts, who resided in Quonset® huts within air 

bases or populated civilian areas. 

Griggs has written captions for his nearly 100 black-andwhite photographs which, in addition to showing the camaraderie of the engineers, are understated testaments to their 

strong work ethic and tenacity to get the job done. One caption opines that these pictures of the 97th are the only formal 

photographs of any black regimental Soldiers who worked 

on the Alcan Highway. There are pictures of Soldiers on a 

troop train heading for embarkation from Seattle; sunken 

mud-bound trucks; a Soldier holding up fresh salmon for the 

regiment’s pet bear cub; engineers creating corduroy roads 

over mud and muskeg; bridge construction across waterways; 

and a penultimate moment of the author shaking hands with 

a bulldozer operator on the Alaska-Canada border—before 

the 97th continued 20 miles beyond their assignment, into 

Canada, to meet the oncoming white regiment. 

As regimental photographer, Griggs managed to get 

himself into many of the photos. Though he was doing an 

assignment, his pictures are more elemental, and elegant, 

in their storytelling. As Brinkley observes once again, 

“None . . . [of the other extant publications on these men] 

offer what Griggs’s does: an honest matrix of memorable 

images documenting the raw, unfiltered experiences of black 

[S]oldiers at work in a segregated army.” 

Consider: These engineers had to use pickaxes to chop 

away any glaciers they didn’t build around. They lived

. . . . .
April-June 2008 Engineer 73

isolated in tent cities in subzero weather. In winter, they left 

trucks running all night or placed torches underneath them 

so they would start. Supplies were dropped to them by parachute. More effective than any straight narrative can be, 

pictures like these leave one incredulous at the engineering

effort required in such an environment. Consider the splendor 

of their ordeal, since you as the reader will—guaranteed—

regard highly the men of the 97th Regiment by the end of this 

photographic essay. 

Mud: A Military History, by 

C. E. Wood, Potomac Books, 

Inc.: Washington, DC, 2006, 

190 pages, ISBN 1-57488-

984-2, $23.95 (hardcover).

In military operations, mud 

can be—well, a quagmire. 

But its presence confers both 

hindrance and advantage, as 

C. E. Wood points out in his 

book Mud: A Military History. Alternating harrowing 

and humorous aspects taken 

from interviews, memoirs, and historical records, the author 

explores the character of mud and its effects on warfare in 

North America, Europe, and Asia in the past few centuries, 

with archival photos accenting mud’s significance.

It isn’t just mobility that is affected by an oozing, slippery 

earth; the very morale of warfighters sinks too, in trying to 

gain some ground. As first-person accounts reveal, mud provokes anger and frustration by underscoring the general distress of staying wet and dirty. The author conjures images of 

combatants encased in heavy, crusty mud and has the reader 

consider not only their discomfort, but mud’s deterioration 

of their clothing and boots as well. Basing his early chapters on how mud can assert itself during wars—permanent 

mud (marshes), seasonal mud (areas of excessive intermittent 

rainfall), and random mud (regions of thaw or unpredictable 

rain)—Wood devotes the remaining sections to mud’s impact 

on engineers, health, morale, fatigue, and wear and tear.

Mud’s characteristics include softness, adhesiveness, 

and slipperiness (which can even remove the advantage of 

tracked and all-wheel vehicles in staying on the road); mud’s 

effects are churnability (how forces can make more mud by 

disturbing it), capacity to dampen explosives, and ability to 

create suction. In an example of this latter effect, engineers 

in Vietnam had to use explosives to loosen the vacuum under 

mud-bound retriever tanks. Helicopters also fall prey to the 

powerful suction of mud as they ascend from it.

. . . . .

But mud has its virtues: A sleeping soldier whose leg was 

run over by a vehicle was only bruised, due to the soft mud 

beneath him. An Army medic who jumped out of a helicopter 

in Vietnam lived, since he landed in mud. A parachutist in 

World War II survived when his airplane ran out of fuel over 

China and he fell into mud next to a rice paddy.

Counterbalancing the hazards of mud on a battlefield—

such as its slipperiness and suction, soil bacteria (specifically, 

tetanus and anthrax) that can infect wounds, and gas gangrene 

(from soil containing bacillus of horse manure)—the author 

includes a surprising number of mud’s benefits. It can serve 

as a poultice for wounds, a mudpack to discourage insects 

like red ants and gnats, a layer on clothing for warmth, a 

source of moisture placed on the tongue in inordinately hot

weather—despite the bacterial content, which is especially virulent due to mud’s plasticity. Additionally, stories of 

mud used for camouflage and concealment in Vietnam, the

Spanish-American War, the Crimean War, and the war in 

Afghanistan are detailed by the author.

In the chapter “Mud and Engineers,” Wood discusses the 

use of corduroy roads in muddy areas; these engineer-built 

log roads were used, for example, by Germans in Russian 

swamps. A variant of corduroy roads by the South Vietnamese, using banana fronds and laterite (a clay-like substance 

with heavy iron deposits), was put to good use by American 

engineers in Vietnam. The author points out that in muddy 

conditions additional engineers are always needed, and they 

must keep adding construction materials (such as bricks or 

logs) nonstop to the sloughy surface to assure mobility.

Mud in wartime hides elements that contribute to its fetid 

quality—human and other animal bodies in decay, waste materials, sunken military equipment with its toxic liquids, and 

warfighting chemicals. This side of war, perhaps unconsidered by the general populace, is part of Wood’s environmental 

discussion. The difficulty of evacuating casualties, already an 

exhausting and slippery business in mud, can be compounded 

by treacherous elements just beneath it.

Trenchfoot (now called immersion foot)—a concomitant of water plus cold temperatures, and which can lead to 

gangrene—was rampant in World War II, when combatants

often stood in water for hours on end. As doctors performed 

surgery while standing in bunkers, water seeped through the 

ceiling and rose higher on the ground inside, often up to their 

knees. Attempts to keep feet dry in the field included digging 

trenches around warfighters and filling entrenchments with 

stones to stand on. Many trials were conducted to produce a 

waterproof boot for prevention of trenchfoot, but Wood notes 

that most solutions were primitive or ineffective (rawhide), 

poor in quality (English shoes that fell apart), or impracticable (wooden boards strapped to boots) until a waterproof 

thigh boot was issued in 1915. Civil War Soldiers were

often shoeless as they marched in mud and suffered many 

foot maladies.
74 Engineer April-June 2008

The attributes and consequences of mud are quite shocking 

in their full delineation by Wood. How many people (before 

reading this book) would have considered that when mud is 

knee-high, extraction of oneself is possible—whereas when it 

rises to thigh level, mere suction often prevents escape? Wood 

cites accounts of men drowning in mud, with those around 

them helpless to assist. The author even discusses the awful 

associations the military have with dying in the mud, and how 

their compatriots will lift a fallen person above it to carry the 

corpse to dry ground; dignity issues abound in an environment fostering what might be called an ignoble death.

And yet, Wood’s humor is pervasive, as in references to 

“mud’s dirty tricks” and the weather’s steel-trap tendency 

to change dirt to mud at the defining moment of an army’s 

tactics. In an odd anecdote, Soldiers told of experiencing a 

thwarting “mud rain” in Iraq in 2003 as rain embraced sandstorm particles, producing slick mud that coated all as it fell.

What makes Mud: A Military History unusual is its easy 

readability along with technical relevance for military engineers and planners. Yet it is written with a literary flair and 

has a naturalistic quality in its unblinking realism.

Reviewed by Susan Stevens, currently a Department of the 

Army Intern in Instructional Design in the Maneuver Support Center Directorate of Training, Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri. Her background includes a civil service career in 

various federal agencies and teaching English, literature, and 

creative writing at high school and college levels.

This book may be the first to address mud’s impact on 

the psyche—the morale, health, and sustained effort of warfighters while their operations go forward. As the author 

points out, mud either prevents or offsets this forward movement in battle. Among his written sources, he cites as the 

“best” reference Harold A. Winters’ Battling the Elements, 

a study of mud and mobility during the Civil War, World

War I, and World War II. As a former Marine and Soldier,

C. E. Wood has carefully crafted a book on an aspect of

environment in wartime: the behavior of mud, and those individuals having to reconcile themselves to it. 

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.

Allmon, Sergeant William E. 1st Battalion, 64th Armor Regiment, 2d Brigade Combat Team Fort Stewart, Georgia

Buxbaum, Specialist Justin L. 62d Engineer Battalion, 36th Engineer Brigade Fort Hood, Texas

Dhanoolal, Sergeant Dayne D. 2d Battalion, 69th Armor Regiment, 3d Brigade Combat Team Fort Benning, Georgia

Dix, Specialist William T. 14th Engineer Battalion, 555th Engineer Brigade, I Corps Fort Lewis, Washington

Gonzalez, Specialist Alex D. 43d Engineer Company, 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment Fort Hood, Texas

Kanakaole, Private Eugene 87th Engineer Company, 8th Battalion, 36th Brigade Fort Hood, Texas

Marion, Private First Class Adam L. 171st Engineer Company, North Carolina Army National Guard Saint Pauls, North Carolina

McNeal, Staff Sergeant Jeremiah E. 237th Engineer Company, 276th Engineer Battalion West Point, Virginia

Richard III, Sergeant Joseph A. 4th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team Fort Polk, Louisiana
April-June 2008 Engineer 75

By Sergeant Raymond Sieger

During their Operation Iraqi Freedom deployment 

at Camp Bucca, Iraq, engineer Soldiers of the 

310th Military Police Battalion’s repair and utility 

(R&U) section chose a unique way to honor their Army 

branch. They constructed a building with a façade in the form 

of the Army engineer castle as a way to honor Army engineers 

who had fallen in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Two weeks after arriving at Camp Bucca and setting up 

shop, Soldiers in the section learned that they needed to vacate 

the existing shop to make room for another arriving unit. With 

no other building available, they were told by the forward 

operations base (FOB) field engineering team that land would 

be set aside for them but that they would have to build their 

own shop. As one of the section’s noncommissioned officers 

(NCOs) designed and drew up blueprints for the new building, 

other team members set out to build a temporary building to 

secure their equipment. This 500-square foot structure would 

also serve as a training tool to teach team members with other 

military occupational specialties the basic carpentry skills 

they would need when it came time to build the much larger 

permanent structure. 

In spare time outside the section’s duties of building and 

maintaining the camp’s theater internment facility, the Soldiers 

built the “Engineer Castle” in 19 days over the course of 

3 months. Considering the quality and availability of lumber 

in Iraq and the size and complexity of the façade, the building 

was a monumental achievement for the section. In the end, it 

became a landmark on the FOB, even for approaching aircraft 

since it was directly in the flight path of incoming helicopters. 

With its detailed design and brilliant color, there was nothing 

like it in all of Iraq. 

The towers on each side were intended as offices for the 

engineer officer and the NCO in charge, while the remainder 

of the building was to be used for shop and tool storage 

areas. In the rear was a covered saw deck for large projects. 

However, since the building was not considered an FOB asset, 

it was never included in the FOB power plan, and the original 

aims were never realized. Ironically, just 5 days before the 

310th was due to redeploy to the states, the building burned 

to the ground when a generator placed close to the saw deck 

by the replacement unit caught fire. The building was to be 

dedicated with a memorial plaque donated by the vendor 

responsible for most of the materials used in the construction. 

The structure may be gone, but its memory and purpose will 

live forever in the hearts and minds of the Soldiers of the 

310th Military Police Battalion and all those who served at 

Camp Bucca while the castle stood.

Sergeant Sieger was the R&U section leader while deployed 

with the 310th Military Police Battalion. He joined the Army in 

1974 and left in 1987, when he enlisted in the Navy and served 

as a corpsman until 1994. He joined the Army Reserve in 2004 

as an engineer. In his civilian job, he is a land acquisition 

The Castle gets a coat of red paint. project manager with a national home builder.
Engineer Update

U.S. civilians would fill the critical roles of obligating funds, 

whereas vetted local nationals or expatriates could perform 

roles such as construction inspection and engineering design. 

The DPW would be in support of the COB mayor’s section 

but not in its chain of command, providing the independence 

of operation required by the facility engineers. 

The skills required for these positions already exist in the 

United States Army Facility Engineer Group (FEG), which 

is scheduled to begin reorganization in fiscal year 2009. 

Currently, all the FETs and facility engineer detachments in 

the Army are assigned to the FEG. The new force structure 

would provide the 412th and 416th Engineer Commands with 

a pool of skilled personnel to fill these positions. 

Sustaining Facility Engineer Skills

As this operation has illustrated, the Engineer 

Regiment must provide maneuver commanders with 

officers who have facility engineering skills to help 

construct COPs and FOBs. With the deactivation of the FEG, 

the intellectual capital of this organization will be lost if it is 

not captured by a new organization. The United States Army 

Engineer School must recognize this and work with the FEG 

to acquire the lessons learned, DPW workshop lesson plans, 

and other key information before it is lost. The position of 

facility construction contract management engineer should be 

on the brigade and division engineer staffs. The skills required 

for the position include—

(“DPW in Iraq,” continued from page 55)

76 Engineer April-June 2008

Using the Theater Construction Management System.

Estimating costs.

Writing specifications.

Managing contracts.

Positions on the G7 staff should focus on MILCON 

program development as well as warfighting. The leadership 

should recognize that the skills required for these positions 

are developed through pertinent assignments and not through 

course work alone. 

Lieutenant Colonel Kniesler, United States Army Reserve 

(USAR), is commander of the 673d Facilities Engineer 

Detachment and was officer in charge of the construction 

management section of the 20th Engineer Brigade at LSA 

Anaconda. While on active duty, he served as a mechanized 

platoon leader and company commander with the 7th Engineer 

Battalion, 5th Infantry Division at Fort Polk, Louisiana; as 

deputy area facility engineer at Camp Casey, Republic of 

Korea; and as Commander, 642d Combat Support Equipment 

Company, Fort Devens, Massachussetts. In the USAR, he has 

been assigned to the 78th Training Division and the Army 

Staff in the Office of the Chief of Engineers (Pentagon) and 

is currently with the 673d FED. His civilian job is director 

of new construction for Mount St. Mary’s University in 

Maryland. He has a bachelor’s in architecture from Catholic 

University.

■

■

■

■

Maneuver Support Center (MANSCEN) and Engineer School Lessons Learned Integration (L2I) Cell.

MANSCEN and the United States Army Engineer School 

L2I Cell need your help. To keep training, doctrine, and 

combat developments current and to prepare for the 

future, it is critical that the school continuously receive 

relevant engineer observations, insights, and lessons 

(OIL). The L2I analyst can derive information from a variety of sources: unit after-action reports (AARs); tactics, 

techniques, and procedures (TTP) used by units in and 

returning from theater; Soldier observations/submissions 

to the Engineer School; and requests for information 

(RFIs). This information is used to conduct doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, 

personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) gap analyses and 

to determine solutions. These solutions are distributed 

to the Engineer Regiment via new doctrine and training 

products, Engineer (The Professional Bulletin of Army 

Engineers) and other publications, websites, and by 

answering RFIs. With the modular transformation in full 

swing, many engineer units are looking for sample tactical standing operating procedures (TACSOPs) for the 

new units being established. You can help by forwarding 

any of these materials from your unit’s deployment to 

the L2I analyst. Unclassified information can be sent to 

<donald.mark.perry@conus.army.mil>. Classified information can be sent by secure Internet protocol, routed 

(SIPR) e-mail to <donald.mark.perry@conus.army.smil.

mil>. For more information, call (573) 563-5340/3820.

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>. Since many unit addresses have changed 

recently, 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>.
April-June 2008 Engineer 77

Developmental Counseling Course

The Center for Army Leadership has recently released 

a new online course for all Army leaders on Developmental Counseling. This course consists of three 

modules, totaling approximately eleven hours of instruction. 

The modules cover types of counseling, leaders as counselors, and the counseling process. 

FM 6-22, Army Leadership, the Army’s newest leadership 

doctrine, states that “counseling is one of the most important 

leadership development responsibilities for Army leaders.” 

This counseling course is one way for leaders to hone their 

counseling skills and to help prepare for greater responsibility. Since the course is online, Army leaders may work on the 

course at a time and place that are convenient to them.

There are two important reasons to improve counseling 

skills. First, counseling is one of the most important ways 

to develop subordinates. Second, counseling helps the leader 

and Soldier to come to a common understanding about the 

mission and how it needs to be accomplished. 

The Developmental Counseling Course and FM 6-22 

are both available on the Combined Arms Center website at 

<http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/digitalpublications.asp>. 

For more information, contact Dr. Jon Fallesen at 

(913) 758-3160.

Multi-Source Assessment and Feedback 

(MSAF) Program

The Center for Army Leadership has launched the 

Multi-Source Assessment and Feedback (MSAF) 

program, a confidential and focused online assessment 

tool for individual leader development. MSAF provides 

individual feedback to leaders related to the eight leadership 

competencies described in FM 6-22, Army Leadership. 

MSAF applies to all domains of training and education 

(self-development, institutional, and operational), all cohorts 

(officers and warrant officers, noncommissioned officers, and 

Army civilians), as well as both Active Army and Reserve 

Component (RC) personnel. 

Individuals will be required to initiate an assessment 

prior to attending Professional Military Education (PME) or 

Civilian Education System (CES) courses. For organizations 

within the operating force, Active Army brigades will be 

scheduled every three years to participate in the program and 

RC brigades every six years. Organizations within the generating force are scheduled every five years. Individuals may 

use the MSAF at other times on their own initiative for selfdevelopment purposes. MSAF assessment instruments and 

feedback accessed through the My Leader Development section on AKO or by logging on to <https://msaf.army.mil>. 

For more information, contact Mr. Howard Brewington at 

(913) 758-3174.

Leadership Development