COMMANDANT

BG Bryan G. Watson

563-6192

<bryan.watson@us.army.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL Michael C. Presnell

563-6192

<mike.presnell@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

Mr. James R. Rowan

563-4363

<james.rowan@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 Aaron T. Walter 

563-8045

<aaron.walter.@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–ARNG

LTC Michael S. Mismash 

563-8046

<michael.mismash@us.army.mil>

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC Charles P. Samaris

563-8080

<charles.samaris@us.army.mil>

COMMANDER, 1st ENGINEER BRIGADE

COL Tommy R. Mize 

596-0224, DSN 581-0224

<tommy.mize@us.army.mil>

ACTING DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Michael A. Dascanio

563-4093

<michael.dascanio@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION

Mr. Robert F. Danner

563-2845

<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. Jonathan D. Green

563-6199

<jonathan.d.green@us.army.mil>

ENGINEER DOCTRINE, MSCoE DOT

LTC Stephen A. Danner

563-2717

<stephen.danner@us.army.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT ORGANIZATION

Mr. Kenneth C. Garrett

563-7889

<kenneth.garrett@us.army.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT MATERIEL

LTC Carl J. Hollister

563-8274

<carl.jerome.hollister@us.army.mil>

Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is published three times 

a year by the United States Army Engineer School and 

the MSCoE 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 MSCoE 

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 $24.00 

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

63197-9000.

ADDRESS CHANGES for personal subscriptions 

should be sent to the Superintendent of Documents, 

P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, Missouri 63197-9000.

By Order of the Secretary of the Army:

GEORGE W. CASEY, JR.

General, United States Army

Chief of Staff

Official:

1007001

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

Bryan G. Watson

03 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major

Robert J. Wells

04 Show the Way

By Chief Warrant Officer Five

Robert K. Lamphear

95 Dedication

95 Proposed Fallen Engineers

Memorial

39 The Engineer Writer’s Guide

53 Subscription Order Form

MANAGING EDITOR

Shirley Bridges

EDITOR

Rick Brunk

CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

Susan Stevens

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Jennifer Morgan

COMMANDANT

Brigadier General Bryan G. Watson

FEATURES

06 ENFORCE Campaign Plan Work Groups

By Mr. Michael A. Dascanio

08 Army Engineer Association: The Engineer Regiment’s Lifetime Network

By Colonel Jack O’Neill (Retired)

10 Adapting the Army: Institutionalizing Counter-IED Training Efforts 

 By Mr. Dorian D’Aria and Mrs. Tahnee L. Moore

14 Strengthening the Regiment: Training and Readiness Authority–Plus

 By Lieutenant Colonel Diana M. Holland

18 Engineers Build Capacity in Stability Operations

By Colonel Jeffrey R. Eckstein

21 Army Training Support Enterprise: A New Paradigm for Training

Support

By Ms. Deborah O. Billups

23 Army Reserve Update

 By Colonel Jose E. Cepeda

25 Multitasking Under Fire

 By Captain Daniel J. Lucitt

28 The Brigade Engineer

By Major Gerald S. Law

32 National Guard Solar Power Projects

 By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

34 Joint Engineer Operations Course

 By Lieutenant Colonel Shawn P. Howley (Retired) and Mr. Michael A.

Dascanio

36 The GeoPDF Project: Creating Maps for the Non-Mapper

 By Mr. Raymond G. Caputo

38 Welcome Addition: 210A Warrant Officers in Modular Engineer

Companies

 By Captain John A. Dills III

40 USACE Projects Impact Iraq’s Environment

By Mr. Ronald A. Reeves and Mr. Scott D. Harris

42 Engineer Doctrine Update

44 Route Reconnaissance and Clearance: A Marine Aircraft Wing

Future Capability

 By Major Nick I. Brown and Major Taylor P. White

48 Battle of Dara

By Captain Andrew J. Dornstadter

51 Transformation in Korea

 By Major Rafael Pazos and Captain Miguel Uc

Volume 40 PB 5-10-1 Headquarters, Department of the Army January-April 2010

NGINEE

UNITED STATES ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

MSCoE

DIRECTORATE OF TRAINING

PUBLICATIONS BRANCH

January-April 2010 Engineer 1

Front cover: ENFORCE 2010 and Beyond

Back cover: Clockwise: U.S. Army divers 

in Port-au-Prince, Haiti; Hyex fills Hesco, 

Victory Base Complex; construction at 

Al Anbar Province, Iraq; and Soldier and 

military working dog, Dura’iya, Iraq.
2 Engineer January-April 2010

 

Clear The Way 

Brigadier General Bryan G. Watson

Commandant, United States Army Engineer School

ENFORCE 2010 –

Three Major Themes

More than any time in our history, 

today our Engineer Regiment is 

composed of a great depth of combat experience, a wide breadth of applied 

engineering savvy, and an incredible force of 

innovative Soldiers—particularly our young 

leaders. Equally historic, today’s engineer 

operations around the world—from Iraq 

and Afghanistan to Haiti, and from Korea 

to the Horn of Africa—require greater partnering of engineers across nations and Services. Further, we are at a pivotal time in 

our history as a Regiment—solidifying the 

enduring lessons learned from nine years of 

combat and applying them to the challenges we face in the next 

decade of persistent conflict.

As such, there are three major themes for this year’s ENFORCE. Allow me to elaborate on these themes and highlight 

a few key events:

Theme #1 – Gaining Sage Wisdom From Our Young 

Leaders. One of the features of this year’s ENFORCE is an 

emphasis on giving young leaders a louder voice and getting 

their advice and counsel on the future. For example, our Warfighter Forum will consist of young officers, warrants, and 

NCOs who have served at platoon, company, and battalion 

level—telling senior leaders, and others, their views—from 

lessons learned to what future capabilities are needed. Our 

Industry Forum will follow suit, allowing junior leaders to 

tell our partners in industry what equipment works, what 

doesn’t, and what they need to prosecute the fight. We will also 

have two keynote speakers—one senior leader and one junior

leader—each bringing personal experience, insight, and perspective to our discussion of the future. In keeping with this 

theme, I've asked brigade and battalion commanders across 

all components to send junior leaders to ENFORCE—officers, 

warrants, and NCOs—to participate and take back to their 

units their view of where the Regiment is going.

Theme #2 – Expanding Engineer Partnerships as 

a Forethought. This year we will cast a wide net for international and sister Service engineer participation in order to 

openly discuss and collaborate on the challenges we must face 

together...as a community of engineers. Nearly all forums and 

workgroups will be inclusive rather than exclusive for our international engineers, both in content and classification. We will 

build on our strong partnership with the engineers of our sister 

Services, exploring ways to advance our integration and complementary interdependence. Seminar venues will allow all of 

our partners the opportunity to discuss their 

view of the challenges in specific regions. 

Theme #3 – Checking Our Campaign 

Plan Azimuth and Pace Count. At last 

year’s ENFORCE, we laid out the foundation 

of a campaign plan for the future that was the 

subject of debate among senior leaders. The 

Regimental Headquarters and School have 

worked hard to put some meat on the vision 

we established. I will provide the Regiment 

an update on the campaign plan, and we will 

use the breakout sessions—attended by the 

full range of conference participants—to confirm, deny, or adjust our decisive points to 

ensure that we remain a Regiment that is 

able to meet the Army’s demands.

Continuing to Build Great Engineers. Our experience 

in nine years of combat has reinforced—again—that Army engineers must be warriors always...and technically proficient 

in applied engineering. When the commander calls, we must 

have the skills necessary to solve his problems and the warrior ethos necessary to deliver results on the battlefield...under 

the toughest conditions. ENFORCE will provide a number of 

professional development seminars designed to discuss some of 

the latest construction management techniques and best practices, provide attendees with updates on the latest TTP used 

in-theater as part of the C-IED fight, get a refresher in geospatial engineering, and many other subjects. Some seminars 

will even offer the opportunity for professional accreditation. 

All the while, we will gather as a tribe to celebrate our honored 

heritage and pay tribute to some among our ranks whose service epitomizes our calling to solve the commander’s problems 

and serve with excellence.

Finally, we will celebrate the rich heritage that is our Engineer Regiment. As in the past, we herald the winners of the 

Best Sapper Competition and pay tribute to the small units 

and junior leaders who will receive Regimental Association 

Awards. We will take a special moment to recognize our Fallen 

Engineers and highlight our vision of a Fallen Engineer Memorial to be set in red Missouri granite in the Engineer Memorial Grove—the headwaters of our Regiment. Of course, we will 

also revel in the company of fellow tribesmen—our great family 

of engineers—at the Engineer Ball.

It will be a spectacular week! I look forward to continuing 

the professional debate that will set the course of the future. I 

encourage you to attend if possible...and to be with us in spirit 

if you cannot.

Lead to Serve. Essayons!
January-April 2010 Engineer 3

Lead The Way 

Command Sergeant Major Robert J. Wells

United States Army Engineer School

There are more than 74,000 enlisted engineers in the Army, and every one of them should have a 

voice at our yearly conference. I hope to 

see a large turnout of enlisted engineer 

leaders at ENFORCE 2010. It’s a great 

opportunity to rekindle old friendships 

and create new ones. Our experiences 

over the past nine years have transformed a Regiment that focused on major combat operations to a Regiment that 

operates on a battlefield without an easily recognizable enemy. The training and 

preparation of our formations is just as 

complicated when you account for the variety of missions required of an engineer 

and the short amount of time we have to 

prepare for the next deployment. There’s no better place to 

discuss these issues with engineer leaders from across the 

Regiment than at ENFORCE.

The Regiment recognizes that it’s that time to institute 

counter-improvised explosive device (C-IED) training—

beginning with basic combat training and continuing to the 

Sergeants Major Academy—and the same goes for warrant 

officer and officer training. We will have started C-IED training by the time you get to ENFORCE, and I hope you’ll take 

time to observe what we’re doing for young engineers. This is 

a big shift in what we require of young Soldiers during basic 

combat training. Observing their surroundings and reporting 

anomalies isn’t something they are used to doing, especially 

when they’re marching from one training event to another. 

Then, their only concern is staying no more than 5 meters behind the Soldier in front of them. Young Soldiers tend to shut 

out everything when doing routine tasks like conducting a 

movement, where they should be treating it like a movement 

to contact. The attention to detail outside the wire should be 

at, or above, the same level of concentration they devote to 

playing a video game. Soldiers should be completely absorbed 

in the environment. Every minute outside the wire is an opportunity to gather intelligence and save lives. 

We have an imbalance of C-IED proficiency in the NCO 

Corps. Standardizing certain individual and collective 

tasks as the baseline standard will give NCOs a good foundation to implement C-IED training in units. We’ll tackle the tasks required of an engineer leader in support of

C-IED operations—from intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance (ISR) requirements to vehicle recovery. 

This year we’ll start defining the responsibilities of first

sergeants to platoons and how they can 

leverage battalion support systems. 

Robots are here to stay. I’d argue that 

light fighters need robots just as much as, 

if not more than, mounted Soldiers. Robots 

should be thought of in the same context 

as any breaching equipment. Ask yourself 

which you would choose if given a choice 

of investigating an active explosive device 

with a robot or with Sapper Wells. Sapper 

Wells would definitely choose the robot.

The Army’s College of the American 

Soldier (CAS) is a great program for engineers seeking to complete their college 

degree. SGM William Bennett, at the Engineer School’s Directorate of Training

and Leader Development, has led the Regiment’s efforts to 

leverage a pure, online degree program with Touro University specifically tailored for engineer Soldiers fighting in full 

spectrum operations. The CAS program will ensure that 

Soldiers are not tied to a specific satellite college or university and won’t PCS and find out that the school doesn’t have 

a local office, thereby requiring that they change schools and 

perhaps lose some of the credits they have earned. With the 

CAS program, they’ll be able to complete their degree anywhere—Fort Bragg, Hawaii, Korea, Jalalabad, or Mosul.

Our partners in industry will be at ENFORCE, displaying either new or prototype equipment. Attending the conference will give Soldiers the chance to make a difference 

in the design or construction of future engineer equipment. 

It looks as if our Regiment will offer one of the strongest 

fields for this year’s Best Sapper Competition. It’s a great 

competition, and we hope to broadcast it for our deployed 

engineers to enjoy. Sappers in training should not expect exactly the same events as last year, since the competition, as 

well as the Sapper Leader Course, is continually updating 

its instruction to maintain relevancy with our formations. 

Our fraternal organizations stand proudly behind our efforts in the evolution of the Army Engineer. They are part 

of our culture—a fraternity of past heroes of the Regiment 

who have nothing but the best intentions for engineers 

young and old. Without their support, this annual gathering of the best engineers in the world would not be possible.

The ENFORCE conference is unique in that we look 

at the past year’s accomplishments, recognize heroic engineers, celebrate the lives of fallen engineers, and make 

plans for future endeavors. I hope to see you there.
Chief Warrant Officer Five Robert K. Lamphear

Regimental Chief Warrant Officer 

Show The Way 

4 Engineer January-April 2010

This year’s ENFORCE promises to 

be one of the best ever held here 

at Fort Leonard Wood. In addition 

to receiving a Regimental Campaign Plan 

update from BG Watson, the Engineer 

School Commandant, attendees can participate in wide-ranging activities such as 

Warfighter Forums, professional development seminars on the latest construction 

management techniques and practices 

and other subjects, Best Sapper Competition, Regimental Association Award 

presentations, and equipment displays 

and attend a special ceremony to recognize our Fallen Engineers. The week 

concludes with the Engineer Regimental 

Ball, which is always a hit with our participants. My message to you: If you are the senior engineer warrant officer 

in your organization, ENFORCE is THE place to be. I look 

forward to seeing you there. 

In addition to the activities listed above, we will hold 

our second annual Council of Engineer Warrant Officers 

and recognize the Warrant Officers of the Year for the 

USAR, ARNG, and Active Army. Our first Council was a 

great success and led to many of the initiatives recently 

approved and/or implemented. I am pleased to announce 

that the Army has approved our proposal to retitle our two 

warrant officer MOSs to better reflect today’s missions.

Effective 1 February 2010, our Utilities Operation and 

Maintenance Technician MOS title changed to Construction Engineering Technician and our Geospatial Information Technician title changed to Geospatial Engineering 

Technician. TRADOC also approved changes in the Standards of Grades for both 210As and 215Ds to reflect the 

changes in rank structure in our units due to modularity. TDAs and MTOEs will be changed to reflect the name 

changes and grade adjustments.

I am pleased to announce that CW4 (R) Jim Flinn has 

been nominated to serve as the next Honorary Chief Warrant Officer of the Regiment. CW4 (R) Flinn completed 

his stellar career right here at Fort Leonard Wood, and 

we look forward to seeing him at this year’s ENFORCE 

and the Regimental Dinner. I want to take this time to 

personally thank CW5 (R) Jeffrey Popp for his outstanding performance during his tenure as Honorary Chief 

Warrant Officer of the Regiment. He has represented 

the Regiment and its members well. The title of Honorary Chief Warrant Officer of the Regiment is one more

accomplishment to add to the notable 

credits for his distinguished career. 

Thank you, Jeff, for a job well done.

In professional development news, 

the long-awaited update to DA Pamphlet 

600-3, Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management, 

hit the street on 1 February 2010. The 

pamphlet serves primarily as a professional development guide for all officers. 

Perhaps most important, it serves as a 

mentoring tool for leaders at all levels 

and is an important personnel management guide for assignment officers, 

proponents, and HQDA selection board 

members. Chapter 14 covers Engineer 

Branch officers and warrant officers. General information 

on all warrant officers can be found in Chapter 3. Reserve 

Component warrant officer information can be found in 

Chapter 7. Detailed career development information on 

Construction Engineering Technicians and Geospatial Engineering Technicians can be found beginning on page 127 

of Chapter 14. Included in this chapter are the Warrant 

Officer Development Models, otherwise known as Career 

Maps, for both MOSs. I highly encourage you to download 

a copy of this new update and use it as a guide to manage 

your career. Provide a copy to your rater and senior rater 

during your OER counseling sessions. Equally as important is that you read and understand our fellow engineer 

Officers’ Professional Development Model and Career Map. 

The next engineer warrant officer accessions board will 

be held in July. I can’t stress enough that we are still hiring 

both Construction Engineering Technicians and Geospatial 

Engineering Technicians. To assist you in recruiting your 

replacements, WO1 Kent Frye has posted the latest versions of our 210A/120A and 215D/125D recruiting trifold 

on Warrant Officer Net. Click on the Engineer icon and you 

can download the files for your use. We are looking for outstanding NCOs who possess a sustained and demonstrated 

level of technical and leadership competency as supported 

by rater and senior rater comments on NCOERs. For commanders and warrant officers in the field, when asked for 

a letter of recommendation, I urge you to only recommend 

your best NCOs for the warrant officer program. For more 

information about the upcoming board or how to become 

an engineer warrant officer, log on to the Army recruiting 

website at <http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant>. 

Until next time, stay safe. Essayons!
January-April 2010 Engineer 5

Dedication

The following member of the Engineer Regiment has been lost in the War on Terrorism since the last issue of Engineer. 

He is the 299th Fallen Engineer since the War began. We dedicate this issue to him.

Hickman, Sergeant First Class Jason O.B. 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division Fort Richardson, Alaska

One of the highest priorities of the Army Engineer Association (AEA) is to recognize all Army engineers who have given 

their lives in the defense of the United States of America. Equally important is to recognize those engineers who received 

wounds in combat resulting in the award of the Purple Heart. AEA is accepting donations to support the design and construction of a Memorial Wall for Fallen Engineers to be located in the “Sapper Grove” at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri—

home of the Army Engineer Regiment. To learn more, go to <http://www.armyengineer.com/memorial_wall.html>.

Proposed Fallen Engineers Memorial
6 Engineer January-April 2010

One of the key events of this year’s ENFORCE is the 

Campaign Plan Work Group Program. The task 

and purpose of the work groups is to review the 

Regimental Campaign Plan to update the current status of 

the lines of effort (LOE), prioritize current decisive points, 

and discuss possible additional decisive points. 

In this era of evolving national strategy, persistent conflict, Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN), transformation, and constrained resources, this hard work is harder—

and more complex—than ever. Yet, as professionals, our 

charter is to achieve our vision in spite of existing conditions. But to do so successfully, we must first understand 

the framework within which we operate.

So...why a campaign plan, you ask? Every profession has 

a vision, purpose, and reason to exist, but simply having a 

vision is not good enough. There must be a plan and action. 

And that action—in order to be comprehensive, coordinated, 

and synchronized—must be organized, prioritized, assigned, 

guided, and monitored to achieve any measure of success. 

Professionals do this hard work; amateurs don’t.

Military engineering is a subprofession within the greater profession of arms. The Engineer Regiment is the manifestation of this profession within the Army. It is a body of 

people—not just equipment, organizations, or technology—

with a passion or calling to serve as a warrior with unique 

technical skills. These technical skills set the Engineer 

Regiment apart, providing unique knowledge, services, and 

capabilities that the Army needs to accomplish its missions.

By analyzing this framework within the context of the 

existing conditions, we’ve learned much about ourselves. 

While doing so, we discovered the need to revise and reenergize our vision and mission, and develop a clear strategy—

translated into an executable campaign plan—to achieve 

our vision. 

By Mr. Michael A. Dascanio

USAES

Campaign Plan Lines of Effort

To Provide Freedom of

Action to Ground Forces

at Every Echelon

BGE

Major Combat Ops

Irregular Warfare

Peace Ops

Limited Intervention

Peacetime Engagement

A Campaign Plan

To Achieve the Vision

A Campaign Plan

To Achieve the Vision
January-April 2010 Engineer 7

Five work groups will spend the morning session of 

Thursday, 22 April, reviewing their respective decisive 

points and gaining a strong understanding of their status. 

In the afternoon session, the groups will prioritize their decisive points within their LOE and discuss potential adjustments to the LOE. On Friday, the groups will gather in the 

auditorium as a collective body and provide backbriefs on 

their group’s discussions and recommendations. 

Train Engineer Warriors. Led by the 1st Engineer 

Brigade, this work group will focus on how we execute institutional training within our Regiment. Key discussion topics will include updates to the Sapper Leader Course and 

Basic Officer Leader Course and developing plans for institutionalizing Counter Explosive Hazards Center (CEHC) 

training. 

Develop Engineer Leaders. Led by the Directorate 

of Training and Leader Development (DOTLD), this work 

group will address several important decisive points, to include the Engineer University Concept, Virtual Battlespace 

System (VBS2) development, and Officer Education System 

(OES) redesign. Discussions will include an explanation of 

the Engineer University white paper, which is the concept 

for developing engineer core training and electives. We will 

also discuss the VBS2 integration initiatives, which are 

rapidly revolutionizing classroom training into an interactive environment. Finally, many will have great interest in 

providing feedback on the current status of the Regiment’s 

OES training. 

Expand the Engineer Team. Led by the Engineer 

School’s Assistant Commandant, this work group will discuss decisive points that include establishing a governance 

framework of engineer forums; developing joint, interagency, intergovernmental, multinational, industry, and 

academia (JIIM-IA) partnerships; and establishing a Liaison Officer (LNO)/Exchange Orientation Program with our

sister Services. 

Develop Engineer Capabilities for Full Spectrum 

Operations. Led by the Engineer School’s Deputy Assistant Commandant, this work group will focus on the

decisive points that help us as a Regiment to synchronize 

doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and 

education, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF), with emphasis on the elements that are actioned outside the Engineer School, primarily by the Maneuver Support Center of 

Excellence (MSCoE). Decisive points in this LOE include 

initiatives in the areas of doctrine, organization, and equipment. Several geospatial initiatives, along with the emerging base camp proponency, are also included in this LOE. 

Key discussion topics will include the Brigade Engineer 

Battalion proposal, explosive hazard detection systems, the 

migration to a mil-Wiki type of publications, the geospatial 

intelligence (GEOINT) concept, rules of allocation, and a review of our equipment portfolio.

Enhance a Sense of Regiment. Led by the Regimental 

Command Sergeant Major, this work group will discuss the 

Fallen Sapper Program and the Wounded Sapper Program. 

The group will also discuss how we can help the Army Engineer Association (AEA) refocus their roles and adjust to 

a younger target audience and how we can develop a Regimental Information Engagement Plan.

We are looking forward to your active participation in 

these work groups in order to ensure that we have identified the right focus for our Regiment, which will enable the 

Engineer Regiment to successfully support our Army well 

into the future.

Mr. Dascanio is a lieutenant colonel in the United States 

Army Reserve. He serves as the acting Director of Training 

and Leader Development, United States Army Engineer 

School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

ENFORCE Campaign Plan Work Groups

Topic:

Train

Engineer

Warriors

Topic:

Develop

Engineer

Leaders

Topic:

Expand

the Engineer

Team

Topic:

Develop

Engineer 

Capabilities

Topic:

Enhance

Sense of

Regiment
8 Engineer January-April 2010

The Army Engineer Association (AEA) is evolving and 

adapting to change, just as our units and leaders are 

meeting today’s challenges. Founded in 1988 as the 

Engineer Regimental Association during then Major General Daniel R. Schroeder’s tenure as commandant of the 

United States Army Engineer School, it became the AEA 

in December 1991. It was envisioned to be a branch and 

alumni association for all Army engineers, regardless of 

grade, component, or specialty. That purpose is still valid, 

and since 1991 the AEA board of directors and staff have 

shared, promoted, and rewarded the proud accomplishments of the Regiment. AEA has grown and matured quite 

well, publishing the superb bimonthly Army Engineer Magazine; providing a host of regimental recognition programs; 

operating a successful gift store in the United States Army 

Engineer Museum at Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri; and offering a variety of events to foster the unique 

partnership between the Regiment 

and industry.

Program Improvements

But AEA membership has not 

sustained a steady period of 

growth. Thanks to suggestions by Brigadier General Bryan G. 

Watson, Commandant of the Engineer School, we closely reexamined 

our member benefits and incentives 

and are now launching an improved 

set of programs. Every member of 

the Regiment can benefit in some 

way by being an AEA member, and 

AEA benefits endure for a lifetime. 

The central theme of AEA is sharing 

and giving back: sharing knowledge, 

experiences, ideas, and opportunities through the network and giving 

back to the Regiment by supporting worthwhile AEA awards and

programs. 

Engineer Fraternal

Network for Life

Our Army engineer family is a 

proud and powerful network 

of thousands of professionals. Consider the 80,000 engineer 

Soldiers in the Active Army, United 

States Army National Guard, and 

United States Army Reserve; the 

35,000 Soldiers and civilians of the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers major Army command; the 

engineers performing installation 

public works across the Army; and 

all the engineer veterans of those organizations. That’s a huge number. 

AEA is the linchpin for that network. We manage a comprehensive professional and historical information network 

through our magazine, website, and e-mail announcements. 

AEA’s links to engineer alumni organizations, combined 

with our new presence on Facebook, add to our social network feature, and our business services to supporting firm 

members from industry enable AEA to provide specialized 

job networking and an online career center. 

Remembering Our Fallen 

AEA established a web-based regimental memorial register at <www.armyengineer.com/index.html> that lists 

the names of our comrades lost since the terrorist attacks of 

11 September 2001. AEA also provides information to help 

survivors of those fallen. We are raising funds to erect a 

By Colonel Jack O’Neill (Retired)

Army Engineer Association:

The Engineer Regiment’s

Lifetime Network

Army Engineer Association:

The Engineer Regiment’s

Lifetime Network
January-April 2010 Engineer 9

memorial wall honoring fallen engineers of Operation Iraqi 

Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) 

at Fort Leonard Wood, and we have a new $2,500 annual 

scholarship award for a survivor of a Fallen Engineer from 

OIF or OEF.

Helping Our Wounded

AEA assists engineer Wounded Warriors by supporting fund-raising efforts, promoting job opportunities, and 

reaching out to them in our communities. They need help 

and they’re all around us, in hospitals or in our communities, healing and coping. Look for them, reach out, and help 

them stay connected to the engineer fraternal network for 

life. We also have a new $2,500 annual scholarship award 

for a combat-wounded engineer from OIF or OEF. 

Recognizing and Rewarding Our Best

AEA administers multiple award programs that recognize individual and team excellence in the Regiment. AEAsponsored components of the United States Army Engineer 

Regimental Award Program, enabled mostly by corporate 

sponsors, are as follows:

■ DeFleury Medal for professional excellence

■ Essayons Award for spouses who make significant contributions to the Regiment

■ Army Combat Engineer Sergeants (ACES) Award for

the best squad leader/section sergeant in every engineer

battalion, separate engineer company/detachment in all

components

■ Best Platoon Leader Award for the top engineer platoon

leaders in the Active Army and Reserve Component

■ Van Autreve Award for the engineer Soldier of the Year,

named for Sergeant Major of the Army Leon L. Van

Autreve

■ Super Sapper Awards for the best junior engineer Soldier in each battalion or separate company-size unit in

the force

■ Flowers Award for Best Sapper Team for the winner of

the annual competition at Fort Leonard Wood, named

for Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers (Retired)

■ Best Warrant Officer Award for the Active Army and

Reserve Component

■ Lieutenant General (John W.) Morris Outstanding Civilian Award

Supporting Junior Members and Families 

Junior members enjoy the most benefit from AEA. First, 

the annual dues structure is designed to benefit them. 

Second, the majority of our annual Soldier memorial scholarships are offered only to junior members. AEA recognition programs that emphasize junior members include 

the ACES, Best Platoon Leader, Van Autreve, and Super 

Sapper awards. Family member benefits include a limited 

number of scholarships and the spouse-focused Essayons 

Award.

Chapters

AEA chapters are out there, although some are more 

active than others. AEA has a quick-and-easy 

“Chapter .in a Box” document to assist any group

interested in forming a chapter. Several of the brigadelevel chapters have recently organized top-notch events

and conferences. The Montgomery C. Meigs Chapter in 

Washington, D.C., annually supports the area Castle Ball, 

and brigade-level senior leader conferences have been

quite successful for the 18th, 20th, and 36th Engineer 

Brigades. Local chapters can support a variety of events 

such as unit runs, sports tournaments, award ceremonies, formal dinners and military balls, meetings, and 

conferences. Some chapters enjoy local sponsorship from 

area businesses. 

Engineer Regimental Store

Long established in the Engineer Museum at Fort 

Leonard Wood, the AEA Regimental Store is a true 

asset to the Regiment. Proceeds from the store 

support the museum and the many AEA programs and 

services oriented toward service to the Engineer Regiment. The store serves members of the Regiment, family 

members, and alumni of the United States Army Corps 

of Engineers, providing a wide variety of one-of-a-kind

merchandise. 

Conclusion

AEA provides a worthwhile and affordable service 

to the Engineer Regiment. If you’re a leader of en-

.gineers, informing others of the benefits of AEA is 

part of taking care of your people. You can legally advise 

them that they can benefit from joining AEA and simply 

provide them with information about what those benefits 

are. They can share and give back too. 

Colonel O’Neill (Retired) is a 30-year veteran of the United States Army Corps of Engineers and has been the executive director of AEA since March 1998. AEA has offices at 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and in the Engineer Museum at Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri. 

“AEA assists engineer Wounded Warriors by supporting fundraising efforts, promoting job opportunities, and reaching out to 

them in our communities. ... Look for them, reach out, and help 

them stay connected to the engineer fraternal network for life.”
10 Engineer January-April 2010

The success of U.S. forces during the early phases of 

combat in Afghanistan and Iraq provides testimony 

to the competence of American Soldiers, the superiority of their equipment, and the exceptional quality of 

their training. However, after the conclusion of conventional combat operations, our Soldiers faced a resilient and 

adaptive enemy bent on continuing the fight and hindering 

any transition to peace, democracy, and public order. To do 

this, our enemy had to change the conditions of the battle 

and nullify or defeat elements that gave us superiority. For 

instance, to defeat our long-range weapons and standoff capabilities, he hid among the populace and attacked us at 

close quarters. He avoided force-on-force combat by employing improvised explosive devices (IEDs) plus hit-and-run 

tactics against convoys and units to inflict casualties. He 

used explosives to attack the vulnerable underbellies of our 

vehicles and emplaced explosively formed penetrators off to 

the side to defeat front-mounted, downward-looking detection and neutralization systems. 

Keeping Training Relevant

The enemy’s success depended greatly on his ability 

to be flexible, adaptive, and able to operate on timelines inside our standard Cold War institutional processes. He could change tactics, techniques, and procedures 

or employ new devices in 60 to 90 days, continually forcing 

us to play catch-up and rendering our institutional training 

or materiel systems irrelevant against the current threat by 

the time they were fielded. Although counter-IED (C-IED) 

training occurred throughout the many training domains, 

much of the training lacked integration and standardization. This produced inconsistency in skill levels and did 

not necessarily support the collective tasks trained at unit 

home stations. As a consequence, much of the most relevant 

training and preparation for combat shifted from the generating force to the operational force, complicating deployment preparation and mission readiness. 

Considering personnel turnover between rotations, 

this often presented units with a steep learning curve and 

forced a lot of predeployment training to concentrate on the

fundamentals. Instead of focusing on collective unit training and mission readiness exercises, many units were burdened with learning individual C-IED tasks, irregular warfare counterinsurgency principles, threat analysis, and an 

understanding of what C-IED assets are available to tailor 

capabilities based on the threat and operational conditions. 

In addition, because of the pervasive misconception that our 

current operational dilemma was unique, theater-specific, 

and of a limited duration, there was little incentive to alter 

the status quo and rectify our training strategy. Figure 1, 

page 11, depicts how we are training C-IED efforts today.

Current U.S. training has been based on the following 

outdated misconceptions:

■ IEDs are a new threat. However, IEDs are an enduring

threat that have been used since the invention of 

explosives.

■ IEDs are specific to irregular warfare. Instead, IEDs are

used throughout the full spectrum of warfare.

■ IEDs are unique to current theaters of operation. This

is incorrect. IEDs are prevalent in every global region,

to include foreign and domestic areas of operation.

Keeping Training Balanced

I

n response to the enduring nature of the threat, C-IED 

training must become more balanced between the institutional and operational domains. Standardization 

and required implementation of common C-IED training in 

initial military training and professional military education 

(PME) is the first step. The next step will be to determine 

what C-IED lessons should migrate from current operational training requirements to the institutional domain. The 

migration of critical training ensures a standardized basis 

of training and provides commanders with more time and 

flexibility while preparing their units for deployment. This 

shift in training would result in a more balanced C-IED 

strategy, as depicted in Figure 2, page 11.

To transform C-IED training in the United States Army 

Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), the TRADOC commander tasked the Maneuver Support Center of 

By Mr. Dorian D’Aria and Mrs. Tahnee L. Moore

Institutionalizing Counter-IED

Training Efforts

Adapting the Army:
January-April 2010 Engineer 11

Figure 2

Figure 1

Legend

ACOE – Army centers of excellence

AOR – area of responsibility

CENTCOM – United States Army

Central Command

C-IED – counter-improvised

explosive device

CTC – combat training center

FORSCOM – United States Army

Forces Command

IED – improvised explosive device

INST’L – institutional

JCOE – joint center of excellence

JIEDDO – Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization

MOS – military occupational

specialty

MTT – mobile training team

NCOES – Noncommissioned Of-

	 ficer Education System

OES – Officer Education System

OPN’L – operational

RSOI – reception, staging, onward

movement, and integration

TRADOC – United States Army

Training and Doctrine Command

Legend:

ACOE – Army centers of excellence

AOR – area of responsibility

CENTCOM – United States Army

Central Command

C-IED – counter-improvised

explosive device

CTC – combat training center

FORSCOM – United States

Army Forces Command

IED – improvised explosive device

INST’L – institutional

JCOE – joint center of excellence

JIEDDO – Joint Improvised

Explosive Device Defeat

Organization

MOS – military occupational

specialty

MTT – mobile training team

NCOES – Noncommissioned Officer

Education System

OES – Officer Education System

OPN’L – operational

Prof Mil – professional military

RSOI – reception, staging, onward

movement, and integration

TRADOC – United States Army

Training and Doctrine Command

How We Should Train C-IED

How We Train C-IED

Red Text

Initial Military

Training

C-IED Common

Core Training

OES / NCOES

Prof Mil Education
12 Engineer January-April 2010

Excellence at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri—in collaboration with other proponent leaders and centers of

excellence—to develop an integrated, standardized program 

for C-IED training and education. To treat the IED as an enduring threat and prepare units to use pooled capabilities of 

their combined arms resources requires the Army to embed 

C-IED training across its educational system. This training 

must align C-IED tasks with specific training and educational outcomes that complement and reinforce subsequent 

skill levels, resulting in an integrated hierarchy of knowledge. Because the use of the IED against U.S. and coalition 

forces is ever-adapting, continual validation of the C-IED 

training is an important process of the training integration. The validation process must ensure that the training 

remains current and relevant to the operating force.

Lines of Operation

After a holistic analysis of the C-IED threat, the 

Army has identified three primary lines of opera-

.tion (LOOs)—Defeat the Device, Attack the IED 

Network, and Adapt the Force—that are pivotal to defeating enemy IEDs. These three LOOs are integrated through 

an administrative LOO called “Governance and Strategic 

Comms,” which provides synchronization, resourcing, and 

strategic oversight of all C-IED efforts across the Army. 

Even though each LOO contains its own unique tasks and 

training necessary to achieve its specific strategic objective, 

they also share numerous common tasks that are threaded 

throughout each. Figure 3 depicts these LOOs and the outcome each produces. 

Identify Critical Common Tasks

As the first step toward achieving these goals, the TRADOC Integrated Capabilities Development Team (ICDT) 

convened a training summit at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 

in November 2009 to identify what C-IED training is needed at each echelon of skills within the Army—from Soldiers 

entering initial training through senior leaders attending 

advanced PME. This effort was collaborative, involving expertise from across the Army and the broader Department 

of Defense C-IED community of practice, with the goal of 

implementing changes in the spring of 2010. Key to the 

overall analysis was the identification of critical common 

tasks that Soldiers must successfully perform to survive and 

function in a C-IED environment. The analysis entailed a 

review of current operational needs; Soldier interviews; and 

study of mobile training team (MTT) tasks, doctrine-related 

tasks such as the Army universal task list, and educational 

tasks such as the Automated Systems Approach to Training 

(ASAT). This analysis provided a basis for Soldier outcomes 

and defined the skills and knowledge a Soldier must possess 

to survive and function in a C-IED environment. 

Figure 3

Army IED Defeat Strategy

Legend:

ARFORGEN – Army Force Generation

COCOM – combatant commander

COMMS – communications

DOTMLPF – doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities

FSO – full spectrum operations

IED – improvised explosive device
January-April 2010 Engineer 13

Identify Enduring Common Skills

The second step in the analytical process was the identification of enduring common skills that cross Army proponencies. Using all current deconstructed C-IED training 

and requirements, the summit members acted as a critical 

task selection board to determine—

■ Common-to-all C-IED tasks that will transition into the

institutional training domain and be reinforced with the

operational training domain.

■ Branch-specific tasks critical to combatant commanders

to be developed in the formal Army training development process by their respective schools and centers.

■ Tasks that cross centers of excellence and formally assign development of those tasks to the C-IED proponent.

■ Common-to-some C-IED tasks that would cross specific

communities.

Develop a Training Support Package

The third step in the analytical process was the task 

analysis and development of a training support package to 

sustain the identified common C-IED critical tasks. This 

C-IED training package will identify the method and time 

of instruction and the resources required for the proponent 

to conduct the training. 

Migrate Training to Institutional Domain

The fourth step in the analytic process entailed the migration of current C-IED operational training into the institutional training domain. Within the operational training domain, new equipment training, MTTs, and many 

functional courses were established to meet the needs of

Soldiers moving into theater. 

Key to any training strategy is the ability to provide resources for the effort and a timeline that will allow adjustments to the curriculum to ensure that it is relevant to the 

threat and operational requirements. Much of the C-IED 

training conducted by numerous schools and home-station 

organizations has been funded by various joint and Army 

agencies. However, a large portion of C-IED training within 

the operational training domain is neither funded nor recognized by the Army resourcing process and primarily uses 

a variety of contingency fundings. The ICDT, in conjunction with the United States Army Combined Arms Center 

Collective Training Directorate (CAC-CTD) has started 

the resource legitimization process using the Combined 

Arms Training Strategy (CATS). CAC-CTD incorporated 

the three C-IED-associated tasks from the Shared Collective Task List (SCTL) into the protection functional CATS. 

The Maneuver Support Center of Excellence linked C-IED 

training enablers with the SCTLs using the ASAT database. As the CAC ASAT consolidated database for record 

is uploaded, units across the force will be able to identify 

C-IED training resources in association with their full

spectrum operations mission-essential task list using the 

Digital Training Management System. 

Conclusion

The changes forthcoming in the Army’s C-IED training strategy will provide a template and foundation for transforming our institutional training domains 

to become more flexible and responsive to the operational force and better support the Army Force Generation.

It will—

■ Tie in requirements with skill sets.

■ Ensure integration within educational hierarchies.

■ Establish decision points to evaluate and update

training.

■ Promote better standardization and synchronization

across proponencies.

■ Link resources to execution. 

As a result, these mechanisms will ensure that the institutional domain is better postured to support an Army 

at war, in any theater around the globe, and be able to respond to any changes in enemy tactics or weapon systems.

Mr. D’Aria is Technical Director, Counter Explosive 

Hazards Center, United States Army Engineer School, Fort 

Leonard Wood, Missouri. He holds a bachelor’s in law enforcement and criminology from the University of Maryland. He was commissioned in 1977 in the United States 

Army and served as a military police officer until being accepted to flight school in 1982. As a rotary-wing pilot, he 

was initially an armor officer until the creation of the Army 

Aviation Branch. He left active duty in 1988 to enter civil 

service at Fort Leonard Wood, where he served as an intelligence analyst and eventually as the United States Army 

Training and Doctrine Command subject matter expert on 

foreign mine warfare and engineer threats. 

Mrs. Moore is Chief, Training Branch, United States 

Army Training and Doctrine Command Improvised Explosive Device Defeat, Integrated Capabilities Development 

Team, United States Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. She holds a bachelor’s in secondary education from Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Alabama, and a master’s in instructional 

technology from the University of Wyoming.
14 Engineer January-April 2010

On 10 July 2008, the Training and Readiness Authority (TRA) policy took effect for the 92d Engineer Battalion (also known as the Black

Diamonds). The policy directed attachment of the battalion to the 36th Engineer Brigade (also known as the Rugged Brigade) at Fort Hood, Texas, for TRA with secondary attachment to the 3d Infantry Division (3ID) at Fort 

Stewart, Georgia, for administrative control (ADCON)(-)/

Title 10 responsibilities. There was considerable confusion surrounding the policy in the initial months following 

implementation. Some thought that there would be no difference and that business would continue as usual. Others 

believed that the geographic distance between the 36th Engineer Brigade and the 92d would hinder complete implementation of TRA. Many concluded that TRA would disrupt

effective command and control and that the policy would be 

rescinded. However, for the Black Diamonds, TRA presented 

an opportunity for the battalion to formalize a habitual connection with the Engineer Regiment for the first time since 

the Vietnam War. Thus, the battalion decided to embrace

the policy and forge the strongest relationship possible with 

the 36th Engineer Brigade. This article explains how and 

why the battalion pursued this decision and describes the 

resulting benefits.

Weighing the Options

The incoming 3ID and 36th Engineer Brigade leadership encouraged the 92d Engineer Battalion to shape implementation of TRA to best support the 

Black Diamonds, so the command group considered two 

options: One was to maintain the status quo and limit the 

battalion’s relationship with the 36th Engineer Brigade to 

only what was required by the United States Army Forces 

Command (FORSCOM)—execution order. An alternate approach was “TRA-Plus” 1

—realign as many brigade-level 

functions as possible with the 36th. The 92d favored the 

latter approach for three reasons: 

■ TRA-Plus offered the opportunity to rebuild stronger 

relationships between engineer units. 

■ Once the mandatory changes required under TRA were 

overlaid on pre-TRA practices, the battalion experienced

a high rate of conflicting guidance and requirements

from different headquarters. 

■ The situation that evolved in the immediate aftermath

of TRA did not appear to be a stable, long-term solution

for effective command and control of the battalion, especially considering future deployments of the various

headquarters. 

Implementing TRA

Some aspects of TRA were straightforward. The policy 

dictated that the 36th Engineer Brigade would provide training guidance and approve the battalion’s 

training plans and mission-essential task lists, validate deploying units, and review the unit status report. The TRA 

brigade commander was now in the battalion’s rating chain, 

and the TRA brigade assumed all responsibilities regarding the reenlistment program. In the areas that were specifically tasked to the TRA chain of command but required 

installation support or oversight, the division coordinated 

directly with the battalion as though the latter were a 

separate unit. ADCON(-)/Title 10 responsibilities that remained with 3ID included general court-martial convening 

authority, installation support, fielding of new equipment, 

and resources for training approved by the TRA brigade

commander. These specified requirements for the 36th Engineer Brigade and 3ID were quickly implemented. However, other areas required further consideration, and until 

they could be realigned, the actions were processed through 

the 3d Sustainment Brigade at Fort Stewart. 

During this interim period, the battalion concluded that 

more could and should be done to strengthen ties with the 

By Lieutenant Colonel Diana M. Holland
January-April 2010 Engineer 15

36th Engineer Brigade. The battalion’s leaders used three 

principles to guide the way ahead: 

■ Minimize the number of headquarters that handle the

same issue. 

■ Maximize the chain of command (92d to 36th to 3ID) to

the greatest extent possible.

■ Understand the second- and third-order effects of a

course of action. For example, will a recommendation

create more work than necessary, and will it stand the

test of time?

Following is a discussion of five areas for which the battalion’s senior leaders challenged assumptions and made recommendations that would support the Black Diamonds yet facilitate a strong relationship with the 36th Engineer Brigade.

Awards Approval Process

Initially, the battalion processed awards requiring 

colonel-level approval or endorsement through Fort Stewart’s 3d Sustainment Brigade, assuming that such actions

would be easier to complete with the headquarters on the 

same installation. However, with digital technology, geographically distant headquarters could process paperwork 

just as easily as a colocated headquarters. Thus the question 

became: Does it make sense to realign this process so that 

the 36th Engineer Brigade commander approves the battalion’s awards? We concluded that it should be realigned, 

because he was in the rating chain and executed many 

command responsibilities already. If the award required a 

general officer’s signature, it should be routed back to Fort 

Stewart and the 3ID commander. Once implemented, this 

system proved to be very efficient and has reinforced a single chain of command from the 92d Engineer Battalion to 

the 36th Engineer Brigade to 3ID.

Property Accountability Functions

Similar to the awards process, the 3d Sustainment Brigade commander initially served as the financial liability 

investigation for property losses (FLIPL) approving official 

because of his proximity to the battalion. However, as already determined, location was no longer a limiting factor. 

Again, we concluded that the 36th Engineer Brigade would 

be the appropriate headquarters to process FLIPLs for the 

following reasons: 

■ The 36th was responsible for the Command Supply 

Discipline Program of the battalion.

■ The commander of the 36th was required to approve 

company changes of command—an event largely influenced by the success of inventories. 

■ Property accountability is a criterion for evaluation

reports, and the TRA colonel is in the rating chain. 

Processing FLIPLs, like awards, was just as timely 

through the distant headquarters as it had been though the 

colocated ADCON brigade. The revised approval process 

aligned all property functions with one headquarters and 

reinforced the primary chain of command. 

Installation Functions

The most difficult functions to assign or reassign were 

those involving installation agencies. Matters such as 

sexual assault, equal opportunity, the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program, and safety took several months to 

resolve. At first, all of these issues remained with the 3d 

Sustainment Brigade in order to ensure continuity. However, it became clear that the 36th had responsibility for 

these functions and required input. For example, the Army 

Readiness Assessment Program (ARAP) is tracked through 

the TRA headquarters. Likewise, the 36th Engineer Brigade commander has an interest in the battalion’s safety 

program. At times, he directs the battalion to implement 

his intent for, and report back on, specific subjects such as

The 36th Engineer Brigade command sergeant major speaks to Soldiers of the 92d Engineer Battalion during a visit 

to Fort Stewart.
16 Engineer January-April 2010

motorcycle safety and the battle-buddy program. Similarly, 

the equal opportunity function is heavily shaped and assessed by training—a TRA function—and because the 

treatment of Soldiers and allegations of discrimination are 

command climate issues, it seemed best to align these areas with the 36th Engineer Brigade. In cases that required 

installation support or senior commander visibility, the 

battalion reported and worked closely with garrison agencies and 3ID. These revised processes streamlined highvisibility functions through one brigade-level headquarters. 

Military Justice

The 92d Engineer Battalion command team also considered the feasibility of shifting special court-martial 

convening authority responsibilities to the TRA headquarters. Like FLIPLs and awards, much of the paperwork could 

be completed via digital technology. Furthermore, because 

the commander of the 36th Engineer Brigade was in the 

rating chain and responsible for the readiness of the 92d, 

it seemed that he should be responsible for administrative 

separations and Uniform Code of Military Justice actions. 

Leaders specifically considered the possibility of a Soldier 

who wished to appeal a field grade Article 15 and speak 

with the brigade commander. Such a situation could be 

handled using telephonic and video conferencing. However, 

the battalion concluded that it was best to retain military 

justice matters at Fort Stewart because of the prominent 

role of legal advisors—both for the defense and the command. This is the only major brigade-level function that the 

36th does not process; however, the battalion commander 

routinely provides situational awareness of legal issues to 

the brigade commander.

Deployments

As many garrison procedures were being resolved, important questions emerged regarding deployments: 

■ What would happen if the 36th or 3ID deployed and the

92d did not? 

■ Which headquarters would cover the functions that

were being formalized? 

■ Were brigade-level responsibilities transitioning to Fort

Hood—only to be returned to Fort Stewart when the

36th deployed? 

■ Which headquarters would have oversight of the 92d

Rear Detachment when the battalion deployed? 

The battalion leaders pondered several scenarios and 

concluded that the ongoing realignment of functions to the 

36th Engineer Brigade would stand the test of Army Force 

Generation (ARFORGEN). 

■ Many brigade-level TRA headquarters were assigning

a colonel to serve as the rear commander, and the headquarters retained the TRA responsibilities of its deploying commander. 

■ One of the purposes of the mission support element

(MSE) at Fort Stewart is to execute ADCON(-)/Title 10 

responsibilities for separate FORSCOM units on the

installation; thus, whether 3ID was deployed or not, the 

MSE would support the 92d Engineer Battalion. 

■ The battalion’s rear detachment would report directly

to the division rear detachment and the 36th Engineer

Brigade’s rear detachment—a mirror image of the

relationship between the units when they were not

deployed. 

Recommendations

I

n a previous article in Engineer, the authors stated that 

in implementing TRA in the 20th Engineer Brigade, 

Fort Bragg, North Carolina, “given the myriad of tasks 

a battalion faces daily, weekly, and monthly, a good bit of 

The 36th Engineer 

Brigade commander 

observes a 92d 

Engineer Battalion project at Fort 

Stewart.
January-April 2010 Engineer 17

analysis and common sense was still required to decide 

which commander would take the lead on a given topic.” 2

As it turned out for the 92d, this was an understatement. 

Every leader and staff officer having to interact with the 

92d knew that there were numerous issues that required 

alignment with a commander, but no one knew enough to 

consider matters beyond the major functions specified in the 

FORSCOM order. Therefore, many responsibilities were 

left undefined, with the understanding that units would 

deal with them as requirements emerged. The battalion did 

handle those issues, but each action required time for the 

staff to develop the process and for the command group to 

explain its recommendations to other headquarters. Following are three specific recommendations to methodically implement an effective TRA relationship between geographically separated units.

Plan for Implementation

Commanders and staff officers who will be affected by 

TRA must carefully review the FORSCOM order and develop a detailed plan on how best to implement the policy 

on their installation and with their TRA units. There was 

considerable confusion about TRA within many agencies 

on Fort Stewart. Institutional memory was that the 92d 

had always “belonged” to a logistics headquarters, and it 

was difficult to change that notion. Information and reports 

regarding the 92d were misdirected because relationships 

had changed. Sometimes, when agencies acknowledged that 

the 92d was TRA to a brigade on another installation, they 

stopped sending information at all. 

Single-Report Format and Guidance

Leaders should minimize the number of headquarters 

that have influence on, input to, or require reports from a 

unit that is separated from its TRA headquarters—or if 

unable to do so, determine which headquarters has primary responsibility for a particular task and agree on a 

single-report format and guidance. In the early months after TRA took effect, the 92d received fragmentary orders 

(FRAGOs) from 3ID, 3d Sustainment Brigade, and 36th 

Engineer Brigade. Sometimes those orders addressed the 

same requirement (such as reporting Department of Defense Form 93, Record of Emergency Data, updates or motorcycle safety) but contradicted each other. In most cases, 

the action officers of the different staffs compromised in 

favor of another headquarters’ FRAGO, but the effort required to reach those agreements was time-consuming for 

everyone involved. 

Consistent Functional Chains

To the greatest extent possible, align the major functions 

with a single headquarters. For example, all personnel 

tasks for a unit should have a consistent personnel chain. 

At first, the approval process for the 92d’s awards went 

through the 3d Sustainment Brigade to 3ID; evaluation 

reports went through the 36th to 3ID; Soldiers were requisitioned through the 36th; and Officer Candidate School 

packets went directly to 3ID. It took almost a year to align 

these functions so that all personnel actions flowed to the

36th and back to 3ID. The only functions that were 

fully aligned along a consistent chain of responsibility upon implementation of TRA were those associated 

with operations and training—“fair share” taskings, 

schools, orders, training resources—and it was in these 

areas that the battalion faced the least friction and 

confusion.

TRA-Plus Benefits

The TRA policy has greatly benefitted the 92d Engineer Battalion. For example, the 36th Engineer Brigade convened a conference in October at Fort Hood, 

and all the Black Diamond command teams attended. The 

conference was an engineer bonding and professional development opportunity that leaders in the 92d do not normally experience in garrison. Similarly, the commander of 

the 36th, during visits to Fort Stewart or when receiving 

briefings via teleconference, takes the opportunity to provide guidance and offer professional development to various 

audiences in the battalion.3 Finally, as the 92d prepares to 

deploy to Operation Enduring Freedom, it is able to easily 

draw on the engineer-specific experiences of other units of 

the 36th that have recently deployed to that theater. Implementing TRA-Plus has brought even greater benefits to the 

two organizations by streamlining processes and further 

strengthening an engineer relationship. The process took 

more than a year to complete and often encountered institutional resistance, but the results were ultimately worth 

the effort.

Lieutenant Colonel Holland is the Commander, 92d Engineer Battalion, Fort Stewart, Georgia. Previous assignments include plans officer, Operations Directorate, United 

States Central Command; S-3, 92d Engineer Battalion; 

plans officer, 3d Infantry Division; and assistant professor, 

United States Military Academy (USMA). She holds a bachelor’s from USMA, a master’s from Duke University, and 

a master’s of military arts and sciences from the School of 

Advanced Military Studies. She is also completing a Ph.D. 

through Kansas State University.

Endnotes

1

TRA-Plus was a term coined by Brigadier General 

Bryan G. Watson, United States Army Engineer School 

Commandant, during a conversation with the author 

regarding the 92d Engineer Battalion’s TRA/ADCON

initiatives.

2

Colonel Duke Deluca, Lieutenant Colonel Fred Kaehler, 

and Lieutenant Colonel Robert T. Morgan, “TRO [training 

and readiness oversight]: Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities,” Engineer, January–March 2007, pp. 11–13.

3

Though some professional development issues are common to all branches and do not require the specific attention 

of an engineer colonel, the author believes that there are 

times when branch does matter, such as in career advice, 

technical expertise, and engineer capabilities. 
18 Engineer January-April 2010

I

t has been more than a year since the United States 

Army published Field Manual (FM) 3-07, Stability 

Operations.

1

 Army engineers continue to conduct operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as support geographic combatant commands. For most units, nothing has 

changed. Commanders still must balance the demands for 

clearance of routes, construction of combat outposts, protection of the force, execution of projects for the Commander’s 

Emergency Response Program (CERP), training of hostnation security forces or local officials, and support for brigade combat teams (BCTs). 

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

element in Iraq—the Gulf Region District—actively executed projects, and commanders balanced similar activities, but the district also supported capacity-development 

activities. This experience in the 21st century has taught 

us that we must do more than simply complete construction projects and execute missions in support of maneuver 

units. Success in the new environment requires the United 

States to build capacity in partner nations, and the Engineer Regiment is an indispensable component of capacity 

building. In keeping with the regimental motto of Essayons, 

this article examines the role of United States Army engineers in capacity building and recommends a framework to 

integrate it into engineer mission planning. 

Stability Tasks

FM 3-07 provides the primary stability tasks, enumerating the specific areas that engineer units support. The three core stability tasks are as follows:

Establish Civil Security

Many engineer missions and projects directly support 

the Army, the maneuver BCTs, and the joint force, including performing route clearance, constructing combat outposts, and ensuring force protection. 

Establish Civil Control

 Engineer activities involve undertaking or supporting 

the completion of specific projects for the host nation, such 

as building or repairing police stations, training areas, and 

courthouses.

Restore Essential Services

The Army seeks to provide needed services to the host 

nation, including delivery of food, water, electricity, and 

medical service. Engineers support Army units that are assigned these missions.

Other Stability Tasks

Two other stability tasks—support to governance and 

support to economic and infrastructure development—are 

not part of the core mission-essential task list, but engineers may be required to provide assistance as requested 

by other agencies.

Building Capacity 

Areview of stability operations in FM 3-34, Engineer 

Operations, reveals a corresponding list of missions 

.and tasks for stability operations. In reference to 

capacity building, the manual states that “support for infrastructure development may be extended to assist the [host 

nation] in developing capability and capacity.” 2 However, 

it does not discuss in detail how engineers support capacity or capability development. It focuses on performing assessments of infrastructure features and gaining an understanding of their current situation within the host nation. 

The manual lists typical missions or projects that engineers 

may undertake or support, some of which include immediate repairs of infrastructure to support the host nation.3

FM 3-34 is the only Army manual to directly address 

engineer involvement in capacity building, and this is under the heading of infrastructure development. Engineer 

experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have involved such 

By Colonel Jeffrey R. Eckstein

“Engineers need a stability operations framework to shift the 

traditional focus ... to a broader 

strategic perspective of improving 

host-nation capacity.”
January-April 2010 Engineer 19

elements of capacity building. These efforts include a Multinational Corps–Iraq engineer staff liaison team with the 

Republic of Iraq Ministry of Oil, USACE subject matter expert support to the Bayji Oil Refinery, and numerous CERP 

projects focused on improving local services. Yet, these efforts fall short of what is required for success in the 21st 

century.

FM 3-07 offers a pivotal insight as to the importance 

of capacity building, stating that “through stability operations, military forces help set the conditions that enable the 

other elements of national power to succeed in achieving 

broad goals of conflict transformation.”4 A key aspect of setting the conditions for success—second only to security—is 

building host-nation capacity from the ground up. Capacity 

building is the area in which engineers can accomplish their

traditional tasks and significantly contribute to setting 

conditions for successful conflict transformation. 

Engineers need a stability operations framework to 

shift the traditional focus from completing standard projects to a broader strategic perspective of improving hostnation capacity. With such focus, the way engineers execute a project may prove more important to long-term 

stability than the actual project. Recognizing this, USACE 

recently published Engineer Regulation 5-1-16, Capacity 

Development–International,

5

 requiring all its international 

projects and programs to incorporate capacity development.

A similar approach for tactical and operational units employed in stability operations is critical. Any framework to 

assist with analyzing and integrating capacity building in 

engineer operations must include understanding the relationships among skills, capabilities, and capacity. FM 3-07 

provides a definition for capacity building in its glossary: 

The process of creating an environment that fosters hostnation institutional development, community participation, 

human resources development, and strengthening managerial systems.6 From this definition, it is clear that capacity 

includes institutions, communities, human resources, and 

management systems. 

Creating Capability

The Army does not define capability, but Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, defines it as “the 

ability to execute a specified course of action.” 7 That definition is not useful in the context of capacity building.

A better definition of capability is the collective employment 

of resources and skills to achieve a desired outcome. Resources may include raw materials, funds, offices, building 

codes, people, automation, and tools. Skills are a person’s 

knowledge or physical ability to execute specific tasks. Understanding the skills needed to create capability and appropriate capabilities to build capacity is the key to capacity 

building. Capacity cannot be developed directly from skills. 

To apply a multiechelon approach, one must understand 

the relationships among resources, skills, capabilities, and 

capacity. 

The figure below is a simplified depiction of the elements 

of public works capacity in a local government. Available 

resources, coupled with skills, create the capability. The 

grouping of several capabilities builds capacity. Here, resources and construction skills create construction capability. The public requirement, construction, and management capabilities build the public works capacity. Skills 

may not be unique to a capability, and capabilities are not 

Public Works Capacity Example

Skills

Urban Planners

Zoning Officials

Program Managers

Contracting Officers

Skills

Carpenters

Electricians

Supervisors

Material Suppliers

Plumbers

Masons

Construction Capability

Project Managers

Designers

Lawyers

Budget Specialists

Skills

Estimators

General Contractors

Management Capability

Public Requirements

Capability

Resources

Funds, Land,

Offices, Building Codes,

Automation, Tools, 

Equipment, Lumber, Fuel,

Concrete
January-April 2010 20 Engineer

necessarily unique to capacities, but the figure does not

depict this possibility.

For engineers, the need for a host nation to possess 

public works capacity creates new challenges. Instead of 

delivering a project or executing a mission in support of a 

maneuver unit, the engineers must focus resources on improving host-nation skills, capabilities, and capacity. The 

engineer headquarters must enable capacity building during project execution. An example that illustrates the relationships among skills, capabilities, and capacity may be 

useful. Suppose that an engineer unit receives the mission 

to construct a police station. The unit can use its resources, 

funding, and personnel to execute the mission by purchasing materials for troop construction, or it can attempt to 

obtain a construction contract. However, while considering 

a construction contract, the unit determines that there is no 

host-nation contractor available for, or capable of, executing 

a construction contract. This lack of civil capacity means 

the unit must complete the construction mission with its 

own personnel, but it also presents an opportunity to build 

host-nation capacity. 

Rather than directly executing the project, the unit can 

seek unemployed local nationals and train them as carpenters, masons, electricians, and plumbers. After a training 

period, the unit can use the trainees, through on-the-job 

training, to execute the project. Army engineers provide the 

drawings, materials, supervision, and coordination with 

host-nation officials for the actual construction of the police 

station. Multiple iterations of such activities could result in 

developing a pool of skilled host-nation workers. 

If skilled workers already exist but host-nation construction companies do not, the engineer unit can serve as 

a general contractor. The unit can build construction capability by hiring the skilled workers and training native 

personnel as superintendents and quality control managers

—thereby teaching future contractors who can bring local 

skilled workers together for new projects. Potentially, by 

working with the local government, the unit could train and 

mentor a local agency in contracting for supplies, workers, 

and project development and implementation. Such practices lead to building or increasing capability within the host 

nation. Cumulatively, they can lead to increased capacity 

within the host-nation government and society. 

Responsible government agencies require training or 

mentoring to develop programs that identify and prioritize 

requirements for public works such as police stations. Key 

agency responsibilities include acquiring funding, determining which projects to execute, and managing project 

execution. When key government agencies can do this in 

conjunction with sufficient construction and management 

capabilities, the host nation has increased its capacity. Increasing capacity is a very difficult task to undertake. It is 

outside the bounds of what an engineer unit would normally attempt, but capacity building is still within the realm 

of project managers. Field grade leaders can easily identify the requirements and interrelated actions. As a minimum, engineer leaders can conduct the initial assessment 

and make a proposal for increasing capacity. The point is 

that engineers can increase skills, capabilities, and capacity while identifying gaps for the host nation and contribute 

even more significantly to conflict transformation. 

The intent of the example on page 19 is to show the relationships among skills, capabilities, and capacity. During my 15 months in Iraq, many people talked of increasing the capacity of the Iraqi security forces, ministries, or 

provincial governments. What was often missing was a discussion of whether the particular Iraqi elements had the 

skills and capabilities required to increase their capacity. 

We usually provided resources and mentoring in the belief 

that we would build capacity, but too often we missed the 

mark. If we understand how resources, skills, capabilities, 

and capacity are related, we can effectively work to improve 

skills and capabilities, use resources, and build host-nation

capacity. Instead of simply executing projects, engineers 

could be an important participant in the capacity-building 

process and add significant value to stability operations. 

This is equally true for theater engagement.

Summary

Again this year in Cobra Gold, the United States 

Army Pacific’s annual engagement exercise with 

Thailand, planners will determine the best project to build based on U.S. training objectives and the needs 

of the host nation. Rather than looking back over the past 

20 years at 20 successful projects, we might better apply a

capacity-building framework that focuses on the relationships 

between resources, skills, capabilities, and capacity building. 

Then perhaps, 20 years in the future, instead of looking back 

at deteriorating projects, we could look back at the number of 

trained, skilled workers; new construction businesses; and innumerable projects planned and coordinated by the regional 

government and built through host-nation capacity. Such successes would contribute to achieving the U.S. objectives of a 

stable and vibrant modern nation-state. Such an achievement 

would be equally viable in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Colonel Eckstein is Commander, United States Army 

Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District. He is the former 

division engineer and chief of staff, 25th Infantry Division, 

and Commander, 84th Engineer Battalion. He is a professional engineer in Florida and Virginia.

Endnotes

1

FM 3-07, Stability Operations, 6 October 2008.

2

FM 3-34, Engineer Operations, 2 April 2009, para. 5-34, 

p. 5-9.

3

FM 3-34, para. 5-34, p. 5-9.

4

FM 3-07, para. 2-6, p. 2-2.

5

Engineer Regulation 5-1-16, Capacity Development–

International, 30 June 2009. 

6

FM 3-07, p. Glossary-3.

7

Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, 12 April 2001,

p. 74.
January-April 2010 Engineer 21

Since the Revolutionary War, the United States Army 

has prepared its Soldiers to conduct their wartime 

missions through extensive training. That training 

has often required some type of training enablers—whether 

people, facilities, products, or services—that allow Soldiers 

to meet the training standard under conditions that closely 

replicate those encountered during their mission. Today, 

we refer to those enablers as training support. More specifically, we define training support as encompassing the training information infrastructures, products, materiel, personnel, services, and facilities to enable integrated training 

and education. Training support develops and sustains 

leader, Soldier, and civilian competencies and enhances 

unit readiness across the institutional, operational, and 

self-development training domains in an integrated training environment.

While the look and feel of training support has changed 

significantly because of the continuous and significant advances in technology, the intent—to ensure that Soldiers 

and civilians have the training enablers necessary to prepare them to accomplish their mission during both war and 

peace—has not. This becomes increasingly challenging as 

we continue to operate in complex environments that require innovative training and training support solutions to 

ensure the success of our Soldiers and civilians, whatever 

their missions. One of the first steps in ensuring relevant 

training support solutions is establishing a comprehensive 

Army Training Support Enterprise that provides relevant 

By Ms. Deborah O. Billups

“To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.”

—General George Washington

The complex TSE governance process in achieving the critical outcome—trained and ready Soldiers

Legend:

ATSC – Army Training Support Center

CAC–T – Combined Arms Center–Training

DA – Department of the Army

TSE – Training Support Enterprise

Training Support Enterprise
22 Engineer January-April 2010

training support capabilities responsive to the needs of 

Soldiers, civilians, leaders, and mission/combatant commanders and ensures Army readiness. 

What Is an Enterprise?

Army Regulation 25-1, Army Knowledge Management 

and Information Technology, defines an enterprise 

.as “the highest level in an organization; it includes 

all missions, tasks, and activities or functions.”1 This definition can be applied to the Training Support Enterprise 

since it represents the entire organization of training support, including all the processes, actions, and functions 

necessary to develop and deliver integrated, operationally 

relevant training support capabilities. 

While the Army currently has a Training Support System (TSS) Enterprise, it is limited in scope. It is composed 

of the Sustainable Range Program (SRP), Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM) Program, Soldier Training 

Support Program (STSP), Battle Command Training Support Program (BCTSP), and the Combat Training Center (CTC) Modernization Program. These programs are 

managed collectively and include many training support

capabilities—including ranges; instrumentation; training 

aids, devices, simulators, and simulations (TADSS); services; and personnel. 

 As broad as the current TSS Enterprise appears to be, 

it represents only a portion of all the training support capabilities that have grown over the past 10 to 15 years and 

even those on the horizon. Some of the other programs and 

their capabilities that should form the Enterprise include, 

but are not limited to—

■ Army Training Information System (ATIS). 

■ Distributed Learning (dL) products and services.

■ Standards in Training Commission (STRAC) for

ammunition.

■ Training development, delivery, and student management processes and tools.

■ Mobile learning and interactive multimedia capabilities.

Although this is not a complete list, it does represent an 

expanded view of what the Enterprise must encompass to 

provide comprehensive training support. 

Why Do We Need an Expanded Enterprise?

The advance of information technology, the demands 

of an era of persistent conflict, and the Army Force 

Generation (ARFORGEN) model have necessitated 

a change in training support capabilities and how that support is executed—from providing essentially institutional 

and home-station training support capabilities to mobile, 

reconfigurable, integrated, and interoperable capabilities 

to Soldiers and civilians at any time or place. Most of the 

training support capabilities of today do not have these 

characteristics.

The capabilities of the existing Enterprise are often developed independently within functional “silos,” resulting 

in training support solutions that are redundant and not 

interoperable, integrated, or reconfigurable. For example, 

capabilities for classrooms are developed independently, 

based on the type of facility—such as a dL Classroom XXI, 

Digital Training Facility (DTF), or Institutional Battle 

Command Arts and Sciences Program (I–BCASP) classrooms. While they all serve as classrooms and require networked infrastructures and facility support personnel, they 

are developed in parallel because they are funded through 

different programs and their purpose and audience may be 

different. These training support facilities typically compete for limited resources and do not provide the most efficient responses to current and future force requirements. 

Without Training Support Enterprise processes that 

eliminate stovepipes and enable integration and synchronization of capabilities, we will continue to develop inefficient 

training support solutions that are not fully responsive to 

the needs of the customers. Applying the Training Support 

Enterprise solution to the training facility example should 

result in the development of fewer facilities at a lower cost 

with more varied capabilities to support several different 

purposes and audiences. 

How Do We Get There?

The United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) recognizes these shortcomings and has designated the United States Army Combined 

Arms Center (CAC) to lead the effort to establish a holistic, 

integrated approach for managing training support through 

the expanded Training Support Enterprise. 

CAC is taking steps to ensure that an expanded Training Support Enterprise becomes a reality. The first key 

step is educating those involved in training support on the 

who, why, what, when, where, and how of the Enterprise. 

It is conducting meetings and briefings with many of those 

involved at all levels to describe the Training Support Enterprise, communicate the value added, establish responsibilities, and gain consensus. This effort will encourage 

leaders to take a holistic view of Training Support Enterprise objectives, processes, and resources and empower 

them to act cohesively to integrate related training support functions.

Additionally, CAC and others in the training support community have begun working together to define the governance 

processes critical to ensuring that objectives are achieved, 

risks are managed appropriately, and resources are used responsibly. The governance processes will provide the means to 

bring together training support managers and others involved 

in training support under a single umbrella to collaboratively 

identify like requirements and opportunities for leveraging 

capabilities across programs and lines of operation (LOOs). 

Specifically, the governance processes will—

■ Ensure that training support capabilities are linked

with approved training strategies. 

■ Provide a means to holistically identify gaps and eliminate redundancies.

(Continued on page 24)
January-April 2010 Engineer 23

These are exciting times to be a United States Army 

Reserve engineer. The Army Reserve grew as an organization to a record-breaking strength exceeding 

208,000. Of that number, more than 16,000 Army Reservists proudly serve the Regiment in 2 theater engineer commands (TECs), 4 engineer brigades, 2 maneuver enhancement brigades (MEBs), and 26 engineer battalions. We 

comprise 25 percent of the total Army engineer force. Since 

2001, the Army Reserve has downsized from 298 to 248 engineer units. Yet, it continues to support the full spectrum 

of operations from engineer units in 41 states and territories. Since 2002, 94 percent of all Army Reserve engineer 

units have deployed. Since 11 September 2001, more than 

13,000 Army Reserve engineers have answered the call

to duty. 

We welcomed the return of the 416th TEC’s deployable 

command post (DCP), the 926th Engineer Brigade from 

Iraq, and the 420th Engineer Brigade from Afghanistan in 

2009. The United States Army Engineer School started a 

new initiative to include all returning engineer brigades in 

its lessons learned program and dispatched a team to the 

926th Engineer Brigade in May 2009 and again in August 

2009. In addition, the Engineer School sent an assistance 

team to the 412th TEC’s DCP at Camp Shelby, Mississippi, 

in August 2009. The 412th TEC’s DCP, the 372d Engineer 

Brigade, and the 411th Engineer Brigade were also preparing for 2009–2010 deployments. 

The Army Reserve is riding the winds of change as it 

transforms from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve. The United States Army Reserve Command (USARC) 

is moving from Fort McPherson, Georgia, to Fort Bragg, 

North Carolina; the Office of the Chief of Army Reserves 

will move from Washington, D.C., to Fort Belvoir, Virginia; 

and the United States Army Human Resources Command 

will move from Saint Louis, Missouri, to Fort Knox, Kentucky. The Army Reserve engineer community saw four 

new commanders at major units in 2009:

■ 416th TEC (Major General Paul E. Crandall)

■ 411th Engineer Brigade (Brigadier General David L.

Weeks)

■ 420th Engineer Brigade (Brigadier General James H. 

Doty Jr.)

■ 926th Engineer Brigade (Brigadier General Bud R. 

Jameson Jr.)

Five Army Reserve engineers—the four officers named 

above and Brigadier General Eddie Chesnut, deputy 

commander of the 416th TEC—received general officer

promotions. 

The commandant and command group of the Engineer 

School attended many of the major Army Reserve engineer 

training conferences and exercises throughout the year, including the 416th TEC Senior Leader Conference in April 

and the 412th TEC Warfighter Conference in June. Major 

2009 Army Reserve exercises included Operation Essayons 

at Fort Hunter Liggett, California, in May; Operation Sand 

Castle at the National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, 

California, in July; and Operation River Assault at Fort 

Chaffee, Arkansas, in July. 

This year, Engineer School personnel will see Army 

Reserve engineers in action again, including:

■ 412th TEC's Operation River Assault at Fort Chaffee,

from 10–24 July

■ Army Reserve engineer battalion rotations at NTC, from

May to August

■ Operation Essayons at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, in July

■ Castle Installation-Related Construction at Fort Dix,

New Jersey, in July

In 2009, the Engineer School trained more than 2,500 

Army Reserve officers, warrant officers, noncommissioned 

officers (NCOs), and enlisted Soldiers at Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri. This number does not include the 250 mobilized 

Individual Ready Reserve engineers the school trained. The 

Army mobilizes four multirole bridge companies per year—

two of them Army Reserve units—which are trained and 

evaluated at Fort Leonard Wood. We have a strong Army 

Reserve NCO liaison team serving at Fort Leonard Wood to 

help retain Soldiers. In 2009, they exceeded United States 

By Colonel Jose E. Cepeda

Army

Reserve

Update
24 Engineer January-April 2010

Army Training and Doctrine Command standards by keeping the Army Reserve attrition rate to a low 3 percent. 

The Army Reserve will benefit from increased resident 

instruction time at Engineer School courses. The Basic Officer Leader Course increased to 17 weeks and, with the addition of the 201A construction engineering technician course, 

the Basic Warrant Officer Course increased to 26 weeks. We 

strongly recommend that new brigade and battalion commanders attend our premier course, the Engineer Precommand Course. The Engineer School is considering including 

new command sergeants major, as well. In addition, the Engineer School hosts an annual engineer Total Army School 

System trainer workshop and conducts critical skill review 

boards requiring active Army Reserve participation. 

For 2009, the Army Reserve nominated candidates for 

all appropriate regimental award categories, as outlined in 

Fort Leonard Wood Pamphlet 672-1, Itschner and Grizzly 

Awards, Sturgis Medal, and Van Autreve Award.

1

 Army Reserve regimental award nominations are sent to USARC in 

January and submitted to the Engineer School, and awards 

are presented at the annual ENFORCE Conference. The 

2009 winners were as follows:

■ Itschner Award: 955th Engineer Company, 489th Engineer Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

■ Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Award:

First Lieutenant Christopher G. Smiley, 955th Engineer

Company, 489th Engineer Battalion, Fort Leonard

Wood, Missouri

■ Outstanding Engineer Warrant Officer Award: Warrant

Officer Three Nathan P.D. Harvel, 321st Engineer

Detachment, 844th Engineer Battalion, Bethlehem,

Georgia

■ Sturgis Medal: Staff Sergeant Jay L. Kochuga, 336th

Engineer Company, 463d Engineer Battalion, Youngwood, Pennsylvania

■ Van Austreve Award: Specialist Ricky L. Weissend,

375th Engineer Company, 844th Engineer Battalion, 

Eva, Alabama 

 It has been a great honor and privilege to serve at the 

Engineer School. In February, my replacement, Colonel 

Aaron Walter, became the new Engineer School Deputy Assistant Commandant–Army Reserve. Colonel Walter will 

help support and carry the Army Reserve engineer community to the next level. Essayons!

Colonel Cepeda was Deputy Assistant Commandant–

Army Reserve when he wrote this article.

Endnote

1

Fort Leonard Wood Pamplet 672-1 was revised on 18 

November 2009. The new title is The Itschner, The Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader, The Outstanding Engineer Warrant Officer, The Van Autreve, and the Morris 

Outstanding Civilian Award and the Sturgis Medal.

■ Establish forecasting, validation, prioritization, and integration criteria for program capabilities. 

■ Establish metrics that focus on outcomes. 

■ Synchronize varied processes and schedules with important Army drivers, including resourcing and policy

decisions.

■ Enable resource-informed decisions at the lowest possible level.

■ Provide the analytics to enable rapid decisionmaking

by leaders to adjust to mission, technology, and funding

changes.

■ Establish reporting requirements and processes that

provide total asset visibility across the Enterprise. 

■ Apply knowledge management strategies and applications to enable rapid decisionmaking and identify 

second- and third-order effects of decisions.

What Are the Challenges?

But even with education and well-defined governance 

processes, establishing the Training Support Enterprise is a complex process that will not happen overnight. This broad undertaking includes a myriad of challenges that involve developing, delivering, and sustaining 

relevant training support capabilities. The greatest challenge, however, is change. 

Establishing the Enterprise will require extensive systematic and synchronized activity to ensure the most efficient and effective use of limited resources. It will require 

conscious, deliberate actions by the many players who are 

committed to ensuring that training support is continuously acquired, managed, maintained, sustained, and disposed 

of in the most effective and efficient manner possible. Additionally, it will require leadership commitment, guidance, 

and support to ensure that those involved in the Enterprise 

judiciously execute their responsibilities.

What is the End Result?

With everyone working together, the end result will 

be a Training Support Enterprise that distributes 

available resources to achieve the optimal balance 

between effectiveness, efficiency, and strategic risk. It represents a new paradigm for training support to better enable Army readiness and respond to the needs of Soldiers, 

civilians, and leaders anytime, anywhere. 

Ms. Billups is a concepts and plans specialist at the Combined Arms Center–Training, Army Training Support Center, Fort Eustis, Virginia. She holds a master’s in education 

from Old Dominion University.

Endnote

1

AR 25-1, Army Knowledge Management and Information Technology, 4 December 2008, p. 120.

(“New Paradigm,” continued from page 22)
January-April 2010 Engineer 25

I

t is ironic that as the United States Army focuses on 

the modularity of its force, one unit strived for and

succeeded in forming a legacy-type force. The effort was 

based on the needs of the current fight and the results could 

only be accomplished through flexibility. This commonsense determination was due to the foresight of the leaders 

of the 40th Engineer Battalion and the 2d Brigade Combat 

Team (BCT) of the 1st Armored Division, home-stationed 

in Baumholder, Germany. This article is not an argument 

for a return to the earlier structure of fighting force, but it 

serves as a good example of Army small-unit flexibility and 

versatility.

Assuming command, breaking apart task organization, 

retraining for a new mission under the parent battalion, 

and moving into a different operational environment were 

the jobs on the first quarter calendar of events for Charlie 

Company, 40th Engineer Battalion. The Army has come to 

a point where that kind of flexibility is the norm. Four or 

five years ago, flexibility was a buzzword that fit cleverly 

into every canned set of talking points. Now, flexibility—

coupled with determination—is at the heart of the Army 

culture. Whether it’s a field artillery battery that retrains 

to serve in a military police capacity or the Soldiers of an 

engineer platoon who serve as civil affairs escorts, the Army 

has come to employ all forms of flexibility effectively. 

In October 2008, Charlie Company was to conduct a 

change of command while deployed in Baghdad, Iraq. Normally this is a run-of-the-mill activity, even while deployed. 

However, it was the fifth company-level change of command 

for the BCT in as many months. The only obstacle to the 

obligatory change-of-command inventories was the task 

organization of each of the company’s platoons to different 

maneuver battalions organic to the 2d BCT. What made the 

inventories especially challenging was that the platoons 

By Captain Daniel J. Lucitt

Third Platoon conducts an interrogation.
26 Engineer January-April 2010

were located at different combat outposts and forward operating bases (FOBs).

Then the 2d BCT took control of the operational environment held by the 3d Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, nearly doubling the BCT’s area of operations (AO). With this 

expansion, a second company of engineers would be needed 

to conduct route clearance throughout the gained area. 

Therefore, the battalion commander requested permission 

to reconstitute Charlie Company to accomplish the route 

clearance missions in the newly acquired AO. The 40th, a 

legacy engineer battalion, by now looked more like a special troops battalion. It had an engineer company assigned, 

while two others—Alpha and Charlie—were tasked to maneuver units. The battalion had administrative control of 

Signal Corps and Military Intelligence Corps companies, 

the required Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 

and administrative and logistics support of the brigade 

headquarters company. 

Charlie Company was reconstituted at FOB Hammer to 

start company-level combat operations. In quick succession, 

the company had change-of-command and relief-in-place/

transfer-of-authority ceremonies. Then the leaders turned 

their attention to retraining sappers who had previously 

been trained in route clearance but had performed other 

duties during the deployment thus far. The training plan 

included a “right-seat, left-seat” ride with the battalion’s 

Bravo Company. It was determined that the retraining 

would take place before conducting the change-of-command 

inventories. 

The focus of the training plan was to ensure that the 

noncommissioned officers (NCOs) were directly responsible 

for all training in their platoons. Three of the four platoon 

sergeants were explosive ordnance clearance agent (EOCA)-

qualified and a select few squad leaders had attended one 

of the two available Route Reconnaissance and Clearance 

Courses. Responsibility for the training rested squarely on 

the shoulders of these leaders, who would perform the missions with the Soldiers. 

The Soldiers needed to reinforce the basics of their route 

clearance skills and the fundamentally sound practices they 

had used throughout previous deployments. Theater-level 

Iron Claw Academy route clearance training1 was offered to 

the company, but the leaders opted to trust the company’s 

NCOs to pass along the training they had already received 

to bring the company together with a common mission. The 

plan worked, and within a few short missions the Soldiers 

were recording finds and reducing explosive hazards on the 

routes they patrolled, greatly reducing the risk to U.S. and 

coalition forces. 

Route clearance operations and refresher training became the top priorities as Charlie Company continued its 

transition with Bravo Company, hindering the change-ofcommand inventory schedule. Training was scheduled to 

allow each platoon a day to refit, permitting time to conduct inventories and prepare for the next day’s mission. 

This illustrated the old maxim that the mission comes first. 

The company’s supply team members were recognized by 

the commander of Multinational Division–Center for their

Second Platoon’s TALON robot (center) returns after emplacing C-4 on a positive find.
January-April 2010 Engineer 27

efforts to ensure that inventories ran as smoothly as

possible. 

As the company reorganized for its new mission, a need 

developed for route clearance in the AO of 4th Battalion, 

27th Field Artillery. This required a movement of forces 

from FOB Hammer to Camp Stryker. The need for a platoon to begin route clearance operations was a major forcing factor in moving the command post, additional engineer 

equipment, and containers. For the second time in the deployment, the company began decentralized operations in 

support of the BCT. The size of the company and the flexibility of each of its platoons ensured a seamless transition 

into the unit’s new AO. The company was able to conduct 

route clearance operations independently within days of arriving, well before the rest of the BCT was established in its 

new home at Camp Stryker. 

The entire company moved to Camp Stryker from FOB 

Hammer within 10 days, and the relief in place began before 

the company was fully reestablished. Due to the extensive 

equipment drawn during the relief in place—and throughout the remainder of the deployment—Charlie Company 

had a complement of more than 70 vehicles. Soon the unit 

assumed responsibility for the famed Route Tampa, a main 

supply route (MSR) for U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. Although Charlie Company only “owned” a relatively small 

section of Route Tampa, the company took complete control 

of it. It also became the only route clearance company intheater to clear Route Tampa and also have partnerships 

with the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police. In addition to its route 

clearance missions along MSR Tampa, Charlie Company 

also was responsible for conducting route clearance for two 

more units, effectively doubling its mission load and operational tempo. 

As a postscript to this multifaceted transition, Charlie Company maintained a partnership with Iraqi forces 

throughout the deployment, cleared Route Tampa several 

days a week, and cleared routes on the interior of its own 

brigade’s footprint. At tour’s end, the company had participated in five named operations, cleared more than 30,000 

kilometers, and interrogated 335 explosive hazards. Those 

numbers read well for an entire tour, but the fact is that 

Charlie Company accumulated those numbers in just seven 

months and did it without fatalities.

In conclusion, the first quarter of fiscal year 2009 proved 

to many in the 2d BCT that the unsung efforts of just over 

one hundred sappers could accomplish Herculean feats. The 

facts are simple; in less than 30 days, the Soldiers went 

from a daily operational role with one set of missions to a 

daily operational role with a completely different mission 

set. The transition took place under fire during a change in 

leadership, with all the inventory requirements that such a 

change entails. At a time when leaders liken changing the 

Army’s structure to steering an aircraft carrier and compare its efforts to a marathon rather than a sprint, a few 

dedicated engineers exemplified just the opposite. Those efforts proved vital and timely. 

Captain Lucitt is Commander, Charlie Company, 40th 

Engineer Battalion. Commissioned in 2001, he has a bachelor’s and is working on a master’s in geospatial engineering. 

His previous assignments include the 1st Cavalry Division 

and 2d Brigade, 75th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of 

the Infantry Captains Career Course.

Endnotes

1

Captain Scott F. Swilley, “Iron Claw Academy: Developing Route Clearance Capabilities in the Iraqi National 

Police,” Engineer Professional Bulletin, Volume 38, July–

December 2008, pp. 56–58.

Charlie Company Soldiers follow as their Iraqi partners take the lead on a route clearance patrol.
28 Engineer January-April 2010

This article compares the increased engineer cell duties 

for brigade combat teams (BCTs) conducting operations at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Fenty, Afghanistan, to engineer duties at Fort Carson, Colorado, and 

the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) at Fort Polk, 

Louisiana. It also presents lessons learned for brigade engineers and units deploying to Afghanistan. It is not a manning discussion, nor does it propose manning adjustments. 

In May 2009, 4th BCT, 4th Infantry Division, deployed 

from Fort Carson to Afghanistan in support of Operation 

Enduring Freedom. By late June, the BCT had assumed 

responsibility for Nangarhar, Nuristan, Kunar, and Laghman (N2KL) provinces, which cover more than 25,250 

square kilometers in the eastern portion of Afghanistan.

Furthermore, the region contains several Taliban-contested 

routes along the Afghanistan–Pakistan border, with mountainous terrain encompassing peaks more than 15,000 feet 

high; narrow, steep valleys; and the strategically important 

Torkham Gate. 

Unlike previous deployments in Iraq, the BCT’s mission 

in Afghanistan required deployment to more than 30 FOBs, 

combat outposts (COPs), and observation posts throughout N2KL, in elements ranging from squad to battalion 

size. FOB Fenty, the brigade tactical operations center, 

is in the city of Jalalabad, in the southern portion of the 

brigade’s area of operations. Here, the BCT engineer cell 

assumed the engineer duties and responsibilities from the 

departing unit and began operations. Soon the engineer cell

discovered it was overwhelmed and seriously undermanned. 

By Major Gerald S. Law

The Brigade Engineer

Afghan workers construct a guard tower at a forward operating base.
January-April 2010 Engineer 29

Duties and Responsibilities

The brigade engineer coordinates “the use of engineer 

and other organic or augmenting assets to conduct 

combat (mobility, countermobility, and survivability), general, and geospatial engineering support to the 

BCT,” according to Field Manual (FM) 3-90.6, The Brigade 

Combat Team. Simply, the brigade engineer is responsible 

for all engineer operations occurring within the brigade’s 

area of operations. The responsibilities are the same whether the brigade is at its home station, a training center, or 

on a deployment. However, the duties can vary greatly. For 

example, FM 3-90.6 lists 11 duties for brigade engineers, 

but depending on the location—Fort Carson, JRTC, or FOB 

Fenty—they may not perform them all. 

Fort Carson

 The brigade engineer cell was virtually nonexistent at 

Fort Carson. The BCT was not directly responsible for the 

construction of its facilities, and there was no requirement 

to design, contract, approve, or fund the facilities within the 

BCT’s footprint. A brigade engineer cell was not needed to 

track large-scale construction projects or enablers. Furthermore, there was no requirement to track improvised explosive devices (IEDs) or route clearance packages (RCPs) at 

Fort Carson. Therefore, the BCT decided an engineer cell 

was not needed and used the brigade engineer as the future 

operations (FUOPS) planner. 

JRTC

The brigade engineer cell required minimal manning 

during its JRTC rotation. The BCT conducted an intensive 

and demanding training rotation at Fort Polk, but again, 

it was not responsible for the construction and expansion 

of its FOBs and COPs. No requirement existed for the brigade engineer or engineer cell to design, contract, fund, 

or track the facilities where the BCT operated. The major 

requirement for the engineer cell during the rotation was 

IED and RCP tracking, which BCT leaders decided could be 

performed by the assistant brigade engineer. IED and RCP 

tracking is a critical and important task, but it can be performed by one or two Soldiers. Therefore, JRTC operations 

required just one or two personnel in the brigade engineer 

cell with the brigade engineer again functioning as the brigade FUOPS planner. 

FOB Fenty

Operations in Afghanistan require a dedicated brigade 

engineer and engineer cell. The owner of the area of operations is responsible for the construction, deconstruction, 

and expansion of its FOBs and COPs in Afghanistan. The 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), local 

and government contractors, facilities engineering teams, 

and division/corps engineers are not responsible for the 

brigade’s construction. They are only enablers who have 

to be managed by the brigade. Therefore, the brigade engineer and engineer cell coordinate, contract, fund, and track 

Local nationals build a stone wall at a U.S. base.
30 Engineer January-April 2010

the enablers to ensure that FOB/COP construction and/or

expansion operations are properly planned and executed. 

Upon arrival, the brigade engineer assumed responsibility for more than 130 major construction projects occurring within the brigade’s area of operations, not counting 

the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) or 

USACE projects already under construction. Construction 

requirements increased significantly. Furthermore, the brigade engineer must coordinate and track the IEDs occurring and the RCPs operating within the BCT area of operations. Therefore, a dedicated brigade engineer and engineer 

cell are required during deployment.

Recommended Personnel

The following list describes the recommended personnel and associated duties found in the brigade engineer cell while conducting operations in

Afghanistan:

Brigade Engineer (officer in charge of engineer cell)

■ Provides engineer input for warning orders (WARNOs), fragmentary orders (FRAGOs), operations orders

(OPORDs), movement orders, and deployment orders.

Responsible for BCT engineer operations within

N2KL.

■ Informs division of all BCT engineer operations, to include FOB/COP construction, deconstruction, expansion, and RCP clearance and status. 

■ Coordinates RCP operations. Develops the RCP clearance schedule and ensures that it meets the BCT commander’s intent. Tracks all RCP equipment, manning,

and training, and keeps the BCT commander informed

on all RCP issues.

■ Coordinates with the BCT counter-IED cell. Advises the

cell on all RCP operations and receives and implements

advice for future RCP operations.

Assistant Brigade Engineer (engineer cell construction manager)

■ Acts as FOB/COP construction manager. Ensures that

Joint Funds Utilization Board (JFUB) packets from subordinate battalions are complete, accurate, and suitable.

Ensures that purchase requests and commitments are 

completed and signed by the appropriate personnel.

Provides design solutions and alternatives to battalion 

engineers. 

■ Acts as construction project approval and funding representative. Ensures that projects are loaded into the

Project Information Management Portal. Collects all 

JFUB requirements from battalion engineers, prioritizes projects based on BCT commander’s guidance, and

presents the BCT projects to the JFUB for approval. 

Logistics Civil Augmentation Program Coordinator

■ Acts as Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) manager. Processes LOGCAP requests from the

battalions; assembles packets; ensures that the letter of

justification is signed; submits a draft letter of endorsement to the logistical support officer and sends it to BCT 

supply (S-4) and contracting offices; and tracks all LOGCAP requests, work orders, and contractors.

■ Manages Class IV supply items. Reviews all Class IV

requests for justification and completeness and submits

packets to the BCT S-4 for processing. 

■ Coordinates U.S. contractor affairs. Develops project list

for contractor teams, coordinates contractor movement

to FOBs and COPs within the BCT area of operations,

and coordinates contractor bill of materials requests. 

Environmental Engineer Representative

■ Recommends improvements to the health and welfare

of Soldiers living within the BCT area of operations and

recommends environmentally friendly actions for coalition forces.

■ Provides input to engineer plans, WARNOs, OPORDs,

FRAGOs, movement orders, and deployment orders; advises the brigade engineer on all environmental issues.

Additional Personnel

Statement of Work Writer

■ Assists the engineer cell construction manager with

writing approved statements of work for construction 

packets.

Contingency Real Estate Support Team Agent

■ Helps the engineer cell legally obtain land for FOB,

COP, and observation post construction and expansion.

Legally enters into contracts on behalf of the Army to 

pay for land obtained from local nationals. 

Lessons Learned

The following list describes lessons learned for brigade engineers and units deploying to Afghanistan:

Go on the Predeployment Site Survey. The predeployment site survey (PDSS) will help you become familiar 

with your counterpart’s duties and responsibilities several 

months before deployment. This allows you to validate your 

training plan at home station, which prepares you for assuming the brigade engineer duties once in-theater. 

Inform the Command Group. Ensure that the command group, or at least the BCT operations (S-3) officer, 

understands before the deployment what the brigade engineer’s role and responsibilities are. Ensure that the S-3 

understands what the engineer requirements are at home 

station, training centers, and during deployment. Don’t let 

it be a surprise that you will not be the FUOPS planner 

once you hit the ground. 

Study the Army Theater Construction Management System. Initially, this should occur on the PDSS 

and later, during personal research. There are mainly 

four different types of construction within the BCT area of 

operations—B-huts, Southeast Asia huts (SEAhuts), and 
January-April 2010 Engineer 31

one- and two-story brick-and-mortar structures. Learning 

the types of construction, the cost of each, and construction 

timelines before arrival will save time during the turnover 

of responsibilities. The BCT commander won’t care if you 

majored in political science. You wear the castles; you’re the 

engineer. He will expect you to know the basic in-theater 

construction and how to manage and track it. 

Learn the Army LOGCAP process. LOGCAP augments maneuver enhancement forces with civilian contractors. There are many enablers to help with in-theater construction. The brigade engineer must understand how they 

are managed, funded, and tracked. Refer to Army Regulation 700-137, Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), for LOGCAP processes and objectives. 

Emplace an Engineer Chain of Command Within 

the BCT. N2KL averaged more than 130 construction 

projects on 35 different FOBs, COPs, and observation 

posts. This does not count work orders, CERP projects, 

or USACE projects. Additionally, the engineer cell received hundreds of e-mails from each battalion requesting construction, improvement, and/or expansion. This 

overwhelmed the engineer cell on a daily basis. To overcome this, the brigade engineer requested that all battalions designate a “battalion engineer” who could prioritize 

construction requests, turn in basic designs, track construction at the battalion level, and send reports to the

brigade engineer. 

Know the Duties and Responsibilities of the Brigade Engineer. Learn what is listed in FM 3-90.6. Your 

command group will use this as a reference. You may or 

may not perform the duties at home station, but you will 

during deployment. 

Conclusion

The brigade engineer’s responsibilities are the same regardless of location; however, the duties 

can differ greatly. At home station, the 

BCT is not directly responsible for the 

construction, deconstruction, and/or 

expansion of its facilities, COPs, and 

FOBs. Furthermore, there is no requirement to track IEDs and RCPs on 

an hourly basis at home station. This 

leads many BCTs to reduce or eliminate their engineer cells entirely and 

form them into a planning or training cell. 

Training centers implement a requirement to track IEDs and RCPs 

throughout a BCT training rotation, 

but a requirement to implement construction enablers and manage them 

does not exist. For example, BCTs are 

not required to construct, deconstruct, 

or expand the COPs and FOBs where 

they operate during training. Many 

BCTs establish a small engineer cell 

to track IEDs and RCPs; however, this does not accurately 

portray the BCT construction requirements associated with 

conducting operations in-theater. 

The BCT requires a dedicated brigade engineer and 

engineer cell while conducting counterinsurgency (offensive, defensive, and stability) operations in Afghanistan. 

Construction, a major component of stability operations, 

occurs on a large scale in support of coalition forces and local nationals. While the BCT is deployed, there are many 

agencies available to design, contract, and fund construction projects; however, the BCT is responsible for managing 

enablers and tracking projects. Therefore, the brigade engineer has a demanding and important responsibility to fulfill 

while the BCT is deployed, which requires a dedicated engineer cell able to coordinate numerous construction projects, 

track IEDs, and manage RCPs. 

Major Law is the brigade engineer for 4th Brigade, 4th Infantry Division. Past assignments include detachment commander and battalion operations officer with 3d Battalion, 

61st Engineer Regiment, 5th Armored Brigade (Training 

Support Brigade), First Army; assistant brigade engineer, 

company commander, 44th Engineer Battalion, 2d Infantry Division; platoon leader, 618th Light Equipment Engineer Company, 82d Airborne Division; and platoon leader 

and assistant brigade engineer, 307th Engineer Battalion, 

82d Airborne Division. He holds an associate’s in welding 

engineering from Ricks College; a bachelor’s in industrial 

engineering from Utah State University; a master’s in geology and geophysics from the University of Missouri-Rolla 

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

master’s of military arts and sciences from the United States 

Army Command and General Staff College.

Afghan workers constructed these B-huts at a combat outpost.
32 Engineer January-April 2010

President Barack Obama said during his inauguration speech on 20 January 2009, "We will .harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars 

and run our factories.” Mr. Obama and the new administration believe that renewable energy is part of our nation’s 

successful future, possibly because the federal government 

has already experienced positive results in this area. Under the federal government's Energy Policy Act of 2005, all 

federal government agencies are required to use some renewable energy. One agency that is continuing to do this 

successfully is the United States Army National Guard, 

with the assistance of the United States Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE). 

Recently the New Jersey Army National Guard sought 

the expertise of the USACE New York District for construction of two solar power projects. These projects will not only 

help the Guard meet the country's energy laws but also 

save money on electricity and earn a profit from the state 

of New Jersey, which requires its citizens to support the 

use of renewable energy. Each year, solar system owners 

who generate more than 1,000 kilowatts of electricity that 

is connected to the public power grid receive certificates 

under the New Jersey Solar Renewable Energy Certificate 

(SREC) Program. These certificates are then publicly sold 

and traded to New Jersey businesses and individuals, enabling them to receive solar power benefits without building 

a solar power system themselves. The revenue is returned 

to the solar system owners.

The New Jersey National Guard is an owner of several 

solar power systems. They will continue to benefit from 

the SREC Program with the assistance of USACE, which 

is constructing two open-panel photovoltaic carport solar 

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

An example 

of solar power 

panels on a photovoltaic carport 

project at the 

Atlantic City Utility Authority in 

New Jersey (not 

constructed by 

USACE)

Photo by Armando Jimenez, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer, New York District.

National Guard

Solar Power Projects
January-April 2010 Engineer 33

power projects for the New Jersey National Guard—one for 

their agency’s Joint Forces Headquarters at Fort Dix and 

the other for their National Training Facility Headquarters 

at Sea Girt. To power these two buildings, USACE is erecting the carport structures over two existing parking lots at 

both locations and then setting up area lighting, inverters, 

transformers, switchgears, and electrical metering equipment. When the projects are completed, USACE will restore 

the parking lot pavement (which is already in good shape) 

by restripping and sealing cracks.

Supported by web steel joists and joist girders, the 

steel carport structures will have solar photovoltaic power

panels—composed of modules—installed on top. Each module is made up of several solar (or photovoltaic) cells that 

absorb the sun’s light and produce electricity—the larger 

panels producing more. The electricity is in the form of direct current (DC), which is not directly usable energy for a 

building. Most buildings require alternating current (AC) 

at a higher voltage. To make usable building power, the solar panel’s DC is fed into an inverter that transforms it into 

AC at a higher voltage. This AC power is then sent to the 

building’s main transformers, where it can be used by the 

buildings for their energy needs. The New Jersey National 

Guard’s solar power system is tied into the public’s power 

grid, and excess power is shared with the community.

When completed, both structures—including the

panels—will be roughly the size of a football field. The Fort 

Dix project will generate approximately 240 kilowatts, and 

the Sea Girt project, approximately 238 kilowatts. Both 

projects are also being designed in a way that will provide 

the National Guard considerable energy savings during the 

high-energy-demand months of summertime. At Fort Dix, 

the panels are being angled for optimum performance. This 

will provide the Fort Dix building 40 percent of its summer 

energy needs and the Sea Girt building will provide 80 percent. Placing the panels on an angle also facilitates runoff 

of rain and snow.

The New Jersey National Guard will earn considerable 

money from electric bill savings and the state’s SREC Program. In total, the Guard will save approximately $116,000 

per year in electric bills and earn approximately $350,000 

from the SREC Program. Besides these financial benefits, 

there are additional pluses that come with constructing solar 

power projects on new open-panel carports on existing parking lots.

Anyone installing a solar power system on an existing 

building roof, rather than a new roof, will typically have to 

remove the panels later to repair the roof as it gets old and 

leaks, which can be very expensive and time-consuming. 

The solar power system will also add weight or roof load to 

the existing roof, increasing its deterioration. As the project manager for the USACE New York District emphasizes, 

a roof may only have one year left, making it impractical 

to install panels atop it that can last 20 to 25 years. Additionally, placing panels on new roofs makes it unnecessary to acquire building or roofing permits to reinstall roofmounted solar power systems.

Constructing on existing parking lots also has its benefits. For example, since storm water runoff isn’t affected, 

there are minimal impacts to the environment. In addition, 

vehicles using the parking lot receive some shading from 

the sun. An open-panel carport design, as opposed to a solid 

ceiling structure, is a smart solution, since it prevents debris such as bird nests and snow from accumulating on the 

carport—which would require regular maintenance. In addition, a solid ceiling adds weight to the structure, requiring 

a stronger and more expensive structural support.

The project manager for the USACE New York District 

envisions an increase in solar power project construction 

and has the following suggestions for builders:

■ Before begining a solar power project, seek advice from

experts in solar and renewable energy, because they can

help save considerable time and money. In the projects highlighted here, the USACE New York District 

collaborated with the USACE Engineer Research and

Development Center, which has extensive experience

working on solar power projects with USACE districts,

the Department of Defense, and other federal agencies

throughout the world.

■ When designing a project, make sure the buildings to 

be provided with solar power are large enough to 

use most of the energy, or have a “big load,” and are

situated near the solar power panels. The farther a

building is from the panels, the more energy it will take

to transport the solar power energy to the buildings, 

resulting in lost efficiency. For example, solar power 

panels far out in a desert are impracticable; energy is always wasted when transporting power, since power 

transmission lines have inherent resistance and

capacitance.

■ Calculate ahead of time how much money customers

will be saving in electric bills in the long run and find

out if there are any energy credit programs they

can benefit from, such as the state of New Jersey’s

SREC Program, so that the project is economically

justified. 

Both solar power projects are expected to be completed 

by this summer, and according to the New York District 

project manager, the New Jersey Army National Guard has 

asked USACE to perform additional solar power projects 

in the near future—all of which will help meet the nation’s 

environmental goals and the President’s renewable energy

vision.

Dr. Castagna is a technical writer-editor for the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, and can 

be reached at <joanne.castagna@usace.army.mil>.
34 Engineer January-April 2010

Today, the United States enjoys an 

overwhelming qualitative advantage not only in our fielded capabilities but also in our cognitive approach 

to our duties; sustaining and increasing 

this advantage will require a transformation achieved by combining technology, 

intellect, and cultural changes across the 

joint community.1 Professional military

education—Service and joint—is the critical element in officer development and the 

foundation of a joint learning continuum 

which ensures that U.S. armed forces are 

intrinsically learning organizations.2 The 

Joint Engineer Operations Course (JEOC) 

will soon be recognized as a key joint 

professional military education Phase I 

(JPME–I) course for engineers. 

Course Description

The JEOC has two parts: a high-end 

Distributed Learning (dL) Phase and a Resident 

Phase of instruction designed to prepare selected engineer officers, noncommissioned officers, and government 

civilians for duty on a joint staff in support of the joint task 

force (JTF) engineer and joint force commander. Successful 

completion of the dL Phase is a prerequisite for Resident 

Phase attendance. It is a 48-hour, self-paced course that 

can also be incorporated as a standalone self-development 

course.

Distributed Learning Phase

The dL phase is composed of eight modules: 3

■ United States National Strategy 

■ Joint Operational Planning

■ Joint Engineer Capabilities

■ Joint Task Force Engineer Organization

■ Theater Engineer Operations 

■ Transition Planning and Considerations 

■ Environmental Considerations

■ Resident Phase Read-ahead Packet

To enroll in the course, students must first have an active Army Knowledge Online (AKO) or Defense Knowledge 

Online (DKO) account. Once an AKO/DKO account is established, students should contact course administrator 

Mr. Dwayne Boeres at <dwayne.boeres@us.army.mil> to 

process their enrollment.

Resident Phase

The Resident Phase is a rotational training course 

conducted at the United States Marine Corps Engineer 

School, Quantico, Virginia; the United States Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; the United States Air Force Institute of Technology, WrightPatterson Air Force Base, Ohio; and the United States Navy 

Civil Engineer Corps Officer School, Port Hueneme, California. The course consists of five days of large- and smallgroup, facilitator-led instruction with a common operational scenario that parallels the training offered at the 

Joint Forces Service College. The Resident Phase has 

multiple seminar and video teleconference discussions 

between students and deployed joint engineer staffs. The 

table highlights the dates and locations for the resident 

courses. The objectives of the Resident Phase are to give 

students the ability to— 

■ Describe joint operations, joint warfare, and the joint 

planning system.

■ Describe, comprehend, and apply joint engineer

doctrine.

■ Describe, comprehend, and apply joint engineer planning using scenarios, historical examples, case studies,

and practical exercises.

■ Describe and comprehend Service engineer capabilities

and support requirements.

By Lieutenant Colonel Shawn P. Howley (Retired) and Mr. Michael A. Dascanio

A small-group leader conducts a class during the JEOC.
January-April 2010 Engineer 35

■ Describe, comprehend, and apply

the strengths, effects, and basic

doctrinal employment concepts

of concepts of Service engineers.

■ Describe, comprehend, and apply employment principles for

using Service engineer capabilities to support joint and

Service engineer requirements.4

Resident seating priority is 

based on the needs of the Service 

to educate and train joint staff engineer personnel. Potential resident students are divided into three 

bands, depending on their status 

and probability of participation 

with a JTF engineer staff:

■ Band 1. Personnel assigned 

to a JTF, combatant command,

or component command. 

■ Band 2. Personnel with a high

probability of being tasked to 

help stand up a JTF. 

■ Band 3. Captains preparing to join a prospective JTF

headquarters, and all others who would benefit from

the JEOC.

Course Review

I

n February 2010, the JEOC underwent a course review 

at the United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM), supported by engineer staff representatives from 

regional and functional combatant commands. The course 

review was also supported by the education and individual 

training programs of USJFCOM’s Joint Training Directorate (J-7) and Joint Warfighting Center; Joint Knowledge 

Development and Distribution Capability; and Operations, 

Plans, Logistics, and Engineering Directorate (J-3/4).

The purpose of the course review was to improve its currency and relevancy through feedback from the joint engineer community. The review enabled the JEOC training 

development team to refine the course so it could be entered 

in the Army Training Requirements and Resource System 

(ATRRS) and meet the USJFCOM J-7 joint certification 

criteria to validate the JEOC as a course for JPME–I. The 

JEOC training development team is considering adjustments to the dL Phase to improve the course’s joint education material.

The Way Ahead

The JEOC is a joint logistics staff initiative directed 

through the Joint Operational Engineer Board, 

and the course and course management team are 

hosted by the United States Army Engineer School.5 More 

than 500 students have graduated from this course for 

the joint force and an additional 160 will graduate this 

fiscal year. Key to the long-term success of the JEOC is

establishing formal requirements funding for the course 

from the Services to the Army through the United States 

Army Training and Doctrine Command’s Training Requirements Analysis System and the Joint Individual Learning 

Content Certification6 processes and maintaining currency 

through feedback from the joint engineer community. To 

become a member of our adjunct faculty to facilitate a Resident Phase, contact Mr. Shawn Howley at <shawn-howley

@us.army.mil>; 573-563-5088; or DSN 676-5088.

Lieutenant Colonel Howley (Retired) recently assumed 

duties as the JEOC program and course manager. He has 

worked in leadership and organizational development for 

Army units for more than 20 years.

Mr. Dascanio is a lieutenant colonel in the United States 

Army Reserve. He serves as the technical director of Training and Leader Development, United States Army Engineer 

School at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Endnotes

1

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Notice 1800.01, 

15 July 2009, <http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/education/

edu_ojpme.htm>.

2

Ibid.

3

Joint Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities Change 

Recommendation Document, 3 October 2008, pp. 5–7.

4

Ibid, p. 9.

5

Joint Engineer Operations Course Memorandum of Understanding, September 2008.

6

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual 3500.03B, 

31 August 2007.

2–6

Nov

United States Marine Corps 

University—

Quantico, Virginia

1–5

Nov

United States Marine Corps 

University—

Quantico, Virginia

14–18

June

United States Air Force

Institute of Technology—

Wright-Patterson Air Force

Base, Ohio

13–17

June

United States Air Force

Institute of Technology—

Wright-Patterson Air Force 

Base, Ohio

Fiscal 

Year

 2010

Location Fiscal

Year

2011

Location

12–16

 Apr

United States Army Engineer 

School—

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

11–15

April

United States Army Engineer 

School—

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

26–30

July

United States Navy Civil Engineer Corps Officer School—

Port Hueneme, California

25–29

July

United States Navy Civil Engineer Corps Officer School—

Port Hueneme, California

JEOC Rotational Course Schedule
36 Engineer January-April 2010

Organizations that use geospatial data have valuable information locked inside complex applications that only a small 

number of professionals understand 

and know how to use effectively. This 

poses a significant challenge to those 

attempting to transfer this information to less-skilled end users. United 

States Army operational and humanitarian missions rely heavily on such 

data, but many of its Soldiers do not 

have the time, training, or resources 

to translate it into actionable information. The United States Army Geospatial Center (AGC) (formerly known as 

the Topographic Engineering Center), 

Alexandria, Virginia, discovered and 

embraced an innovative means of converting complex, intricate National 

Geospatial–Intelligence Agency (NGA) 

and United States Geological Survey 

(USGS) geospatial information system 

(GIS) and map data into the portable 

document format (PDF) developed by Adobe® that lets users 

understand and exploit data without requiring advanced 

training in GIS applications. 

Easy Map Sharing

The Georeferenced PDF (GeoPDF), developed by

TerraGo® Technologies, lets GIS professionals share 

georeferenced maps and data in PDF documents. A 

GeoPDF can be sent to field personnel from engineers on 

the scene of natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina or 

to Soldiers in the field who can use Adobe Reader® to manipulate maps. Most computers are equipped with Reader 

as part of their baseline software, and each Army geospatial 

engineering team has the full assortment of TerraGo tools 

to produce mission-specific products as GeoPDFs. A free, 

user-friendly plug-in from TerraGo, known as the TerraGo 

Desktop, is the only requirement to view GeoPDFs. This 

plug-in has been added to the Army Golden Master disk, 

the standard software load for Army desktops and servers. 

Files are small and nimble, yet are embedded with powerful capabilities that allow engineers to work in connected or 

disconnected modes.

Both types of GeoPDFs, raster and vector, provide a scalable display of the digital map or image with crisp, clear 

delineation of roads, rivers, contour lines, and other features as the user zooms in for a closer look. The raster files 

are composed of paper maps that are scanned or developed 

from existing electronic map files saved as PDFs and georeferenced using the TerraGo Composer® solution. The vector files have an added function that enables users to turn 

data layers on or off to help clarify analysis of map displays. 

The use of TerraGo applications for GIS software, such as 

ArcGISTM and Intergraph GeoMedia®, creates these vector 

GeoPDFs. 

AGC created GeoPDF digital versatile discs (DVDs) for 

most countries of the world through its partnership with 

the NGA Research Center, which has produced GeoPDFs 

of most of its standard map sheets. AGC distributes these 

files, but is working on an agreement with NGA to produce, 

maintain, replicate, and disseminate them via the Defense 

Logistics Agency’s map catalog. The center will continue to 

use Army resources to create new and updated NGA map 

sheets as GeoPDFs until this goal is accomplished. Updated 

DVDs are expected to be made available by fall 2010. For 

copies of GeoPDF country DVDs, go to <http://www.agc.

army.mil/cmb/index.html> for the “Data request form.” To 

see the GeoPDF map data that is the basis for the DVDs, 

go to <https://cac.agc.army.mil/Products/MapArchive/>

By Mr. Raymond G. Caputo

A GeoPDF of the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
January-April 2010 Engineer 37

(common access card [CAC] required). 

AGC will create GeoPDF DVDs for 

all 50 states and work with USGS to 

maintain, replicate, and disseminate 

them.

Aiding Other Soldier Needs

While working with the Army 

geospatial engineering team, 

AGC personnel realized that 

GeoPDFs could address other facets 

of Soldier mapping efforts, including 

the creation of map backgrounds. This 

could be accomplished if more mainstream GIS software could read and 

write GeoPDFs and multiple sheets 

could be combined into a map background. Therefore, AGC funded the 

creation of a software application called 

TerraGo Map Assembler®, which is included in TerraGo Composer®, and the 

capability to view GeoPDFs in Environmental Systems Research Institute’sTM 

ArcGISTM, which is included in TerraGo 

Publisher® for ArcGIS.

AGC also had a hand in converting all the nearly 60,000 

USGS Digital Raster Graphic GeoTIFF files (based on the 

tagged image file format) into GeoPDF using TerraGo Publisher for Raster. USGS posted the files on its store website, 

where an average of nearly 250,000 GeoPDF files have been 

downloaded each month, compared to the 4,000 monthly 

downloads before the availability of GeoPDFs. 

AGC will convert all NGA’s Arc Digital Raster Graphics (ADRGs) into GeoPDFs. ADRG covers most the world 

at different scales—1:1,000,000 scale for most of the world, 

down to 1:25,000 for small areas around the globe. ADRG is 

the basis for NGA’s creation of the Compressed Arc Digital 

Raster Graphics (CADRG). AGC is also working with NGA 

to get all of NGA’s geospatial intelligence products (maps, 

charts, and images) into GeoPDFs and to update current 

files to support the import and export of geospatial data 

with Reader for data exchange, or round-tripping as it is 

called by Adobe. It has also developed its Urban Tactical 

PlannerTM (UTP) in GeoPDFs, along with engineering route 

studies, urban water graphics, country overviews, GeoPDF 

BuckEye map books, cultural maps, and the AGC library's 

non-NGA maps and atlases. 

GeoPDFs Available at Websites

AGC also disseminates GeoPDFs via its websites. 

The following were recently added to its GeoPDF

 webpages:

■ Unclassified Haiti GeoPDF country coverage and miscellaneous GeoPDFs of Haiti

■ GeoPDF UTPs for Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Haiti,

Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Panama, Peru, and Somalia

■ Country overviews for Benin, Bissau, Burkina Faso,

Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Liberia,

Mauritania, Namibia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tunisia,

Western Sahara, and Yemen

■ Camp Swift, Texas

■ NGA image base maps of Mexico

AGC continues to work with TerraGo Technologies to 

ensure that its handheld Windows® Mobile GeoPDF software meets Army requirements. The center is also assisting TerraGo Technologies in its efforts to market a threedimensional GeoPDF prototype.

GeoPDF data sets are available at the following

websites:

■ PKI (common access card required): <https://tsunami.

tec.army.mil/Products/MapArchive/>

■ SIPRNET: <www.agc.army.smil.mil/Products/MapArchive/>

■ JWICS: <http://www.agc.army.ic.gov/Products/MapArchive/>

For more information about the Army GeoPDF program 

or to order copies of GeoPDF country DVDs, visit the websites above or contact the author at <raymond.caputo@

us.army.mil>. Readers are also encouraged to contact Mr. 

Caputo if they know of any GeoPDFs being produced by 

other organizations.

Mr. Caputo is a geographer with AGC’s Geospatial Requirements Integration Branch, United States Army Corps 

of Engineers, Alexandria, Virginia.

A GeoPDF of a three-dimensional map of the Tennessee River Valley
38 Engineer January-April 2010

I

n recent years, our Engineer Regiment and Corps have 

undergone transformation, and this transformation has 

been especially profound for construction units. One of 

the most significant changes was the addition of a military 

occupational specialty (MOS) 210A Construction Engineering Technician1

 to vertical construction companies. With 

this addition comes the question: What is the best way to 

integrate a warrant officer into those companies? The 554th 

Engineer Company considered this question in early 2008 

and employed a plan that effectively integrated and synchronized these construction experts. 

Prepare to Receive

I

t was important to consider two issues when integrating 210As into the company's command structure. The 

first issue was related to leadership and responsibility. By adding a warrant officer to a platoon, there was the 

potential for conflict with the platoon leader and platoon 

sergeant. Furthermore, Soldiers who were accustomed to 

the established chain of command could become confused 

about the role of the warrant officer. The 554th avoided 

this conflict by placing the warrant officers under the direct supervision of the company commander. Likewise, the 

warrant officers' rating chain did not include the platoon 

leaders; instead, it was linked to the company and battalion

commanders.

The second consideration was the Regiment's intended 

role of the warrant officer. The 210A Branch Manager provided guidance on the company's plan and the Regiment’s 

intent. After hearing the company’s proposed plan to use 

the warrant officers as technical advisors, the branch manager agreed that the company’s plan and suggested rating 

chain were in keeping with the Regiment’s intended use of 

the 210As in the modular force. 

Having determined how to best use the warrant officers, 

the company turned its attention to the integration of these 

welcome additions. To accomplish this task, the company 

commander contacted the warrant officers identified on 

the unit’s “Gains Roster” to welcome them and to gather 

their expectations of how they would fit into the company’s

command structure.

Then the company developed a detailed initial counseling to enable the warrant officers to assume their role and 

responsibilities with a clear 

understanding. The counseling 

expressed requirements far beyond their technical title. They 

were charged with assisting in 

mentoring, guiding, and developing the lieutenants and Soldiers in their platoons. In addition, they serve as a unique 

source of advice and influence 

within the platoons. As such, 

they report directly to the commander with their recommendations on ways to resolve prolonged conflicts.

Integration

During a “Leader’s Luncheon,” the company commander stressed 

By Captain John A. Dills III

210A Warrant Officers

in Modular Engineer Companies

Welcome Addition:

Members of the 554th Engineer Company go over plans for a new project.
January-April 2010 Engineer 39

that the 210As are the company’s technical expertise placed 

within the platoons to enhance the platoon’s construction 

efforts. Additionally, the 210As within the platoons were 

not to assume or serve in supervisory positions, but to assist, guide, and mentor the platoon on engineering and construction tasks. Furthermore, the commander explained 

that the 210As were the company’s internal quality control 

and quality assurance points of contact. The 210As would 

serve as the initial points of contact for outside entities 

as the platoons pressed forward with their missions. This 

would enable the lieutenants to focus on the administration and project management of their respective platoons 

while allowing their platoon sergeant to dedicate more time 

to personnel management and mentoring the unit’s future 

noncommissioned officer leadership. 

Key to Success

By having this distinct division of labor, the company 

not only created an efficient system of checks and 

balances but also laid the foundation for effective 

cooperation and communication within the platoons’ leadership and clearly defined the positions and responsibilities 

of all involved. In retrospect, this was the key to success.

Captain Dills is a project engineer for the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, with duty at Fort 

Sill, Oklahoma. Previously, he was commander of the 554th 

Engineer Company; assistant operations officer, construction officer, and logistical officer in the 92d Engineer Battalion; and sapper platoon leader, brigade engineer, and 

theater construction officer in the 3d Infantry Division—all 

at Fort Stewart, Georgia—and was Chief of Facilities and 

Plans, Multinational Corps–Iraq. He holds a bachelor’s in 

architectural design from Morris Brown College and a master’s in architectural planning from Florida Agricultural 

and Mechanical University. 

Endnote

1

Effective 1 February 2010, the 210A MOS title changed 

from Utilities Operation and Maintenance Technician to 

Construction Engineering Technician.

Note: The author wishes to thank the following people 

for their contributions to the article: LTC Diana Holland, 

Commander, 92d Engineer Battalion; CW4 Lee Morris, 

210A Branch Manager, Human Resources Command; MAJ 

James Schultze, Operations Officer, 92d Engineer Battalion; MAJ Andrew Kelly, Executive Officer, 92d Engineer 

Battalion; WO1 Larry Butterworth, 210A, 554th Engineer 

Company (Vertical); and WO1 Tyrone White, 210A, 554th 

Engineer Company (Vertical).

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 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
40 Engineer January-April 2010

The Army's focus on environmental sustainability is 

evident in projects in the Iraq theater of operations 

where the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) Gulf Region District (GRD) manages construction.1

 Solar-powered street lights installed in Fallujah, for 

example, use the sun's renewable energy, balancing the 

needs of the environment and communities by providing 

power, conserving natural resources for other uses, and improving air quality through reduced air emissions.

Greater Environmental Ethic

Environmental conservation is not something that 

was practiced during Saddam Hussein's regime, 

but in visits by USACE team members to more 

than 200 project sites throughout Baghdad and Al-Anbar 

provinces, many Iraqis indicated that they were in survival 

mode—worried about feeding their families, having a roof 

over their heads—and found it difficult to get excited about 

other issues. However, as the Iraqi security situation has 

improved, citizens are able to focus on other needs and may 

embrace a greater environmental ethic as time goes on. 

Since no one wants to live in an environment strewn 

with trash—or where children walk in open sewer drainage 

ditches, or where the purity of water or air is questioned—

projects that are built in partnership with the government 

of Iraq, the U.S. government, and GRD are providing essential services that many Americans take for granted, such as 

clean water and sewage removal.

Of significance is the Sadr City Water Treatment Plant, 

which provides 200,000 Sadr City residents with clean, 

potable water—and employs numerous local Iraqis for

facility operations, maintenance, and administration. The 

three-year, $65 million endeavor supplies water to 27 sectors in Sadr City at a rate of 4,000 cubic meters per hour. 

Also completed is the restoration of the Khark Water Treatment Plant north of Taji, which contributes 43 percent of 

the potable water to Baghdad. Three neighborhoods, or 

mahallas, in south Baghdad received nearly 41 miles of water mains, ranging from 4- to 12-inch pipe. The dearth of 

potable water supply networks in Baghdad and elsewhere 

has been addressed by projects that have helped double the 

number of people on potable water systems throughout Iraq.

By Mr. Ronald A. Reeves and Mr. Scott D. Harris

USACE Projects 

Impact Iraq’s Environment

Fallujah Wastewater Treatment Plant under construction by USACE Gulf Region District

GRD photo by Kendal Smith
January-April 2010 Engineer 41

USACE sewer projects that serve citizens 

include the $30 million project in Kamaliya, 

in which approximately 36 miles of sewer pipe 

and 10 pump stations were installed. In partnership with the government of Iraq, GRD is 

completing other sewer improvement projects 

throughout the central region in Doura, Adhamiyah, Mansour, New Ubaydi, and Fallujah.

Major Reconciliation Project

Begun in 2004 and approximately 90 

percent complete, the Fallujah Wastewater Treatment Plant's revised design 

will treat 40,000 cubic meters of water per day, 

projected to serve 200,000 residents. U.S. State 

Department officials call it a major reconciliation project that will discharge disinfected water into the Euphrates River, where residents 

downstream take their drinking water. The 

design allows for future expansion as the government of Iraq grows its infrastructure. This 

project of vast scope has involved retrofitting—

in extremely close quarters—Baghdad and Fallujah with sewer systems.

One element often overlooked is waste 

management; landfills are the USACE contribution to that, both on forward operating

bases and in the city of Baghdad. Northeast 

of Baghdad in Rusafa, GRD will build a sanitary landfill—not like those in the temperate 

regions of the United States, but designed for 

Iraq’s arid climate. GRD has also built incinerators to more effectively handle solid, medical, 

biological, and routine waste.

Joint Environmental Effort

USACE and the government of Iraq are committed to 

improving conditions throughout Iraq. GRD, headquartered in Baghdad, is a joint effort comprising 

civilians, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and contractors and 

provides high-quality and sustainable engineering in support of civil and military construction in Iraq. GRD and its 

Iraqi partners are building a strong foundation for Iraq's 

future. 

In everything USACE has done—whether a road project, school project, or police station—there has been an 

environmental component. Whenever their established forward operating bases, post camps, and stations are closed 

out, USACE makes it a point to leave them as clean as—

or cleaner than—when they arrived. As Iraq continues to 

grow as a secure, stable, and self-governing nation, GRD 

has finished hundreds of projects in the public works and 

water sector. Since 2004, USACE has completed 896 water and sewer projects throughout Iraq and 44 others 

are ongoing. These projects directly benefit more than

5 million people. 

Mr. Reeves served as a public affairs specialist for the 

USACE Gulf Region District, based near Baghdad, Iraq, 

until October 2009, when he redeployed to pursue other 

opportunities in his home state of Texas. He served in the 

United States Army Reserve as a journalist and broadcaster 

from 2003-2008 before joining the USACE reconstruction

effort in Iraq last year.

Mr. Harris is Public Affairs Chief for the USACE Gulf 

Region District, based near Baghdad, Iraq. He served in the 

United States Submarine Force for ten years before becoming a public affairs specialist in 1995. He holds a master’s in 

communications from the University of Oklahoma.

Endnote

1

The Gulf Region Division (GRD) inactivated in September 2009 and no longer exists. Presently the Gulf Region 

District (GRD) and Gulf Region South (GRS) both report 

to Transatlantic Division, based in Winchester, Virginia. In 

April 2010, GRS will inactivate, leaving Gulf Region District as the only USACE organization in-theater.

Street in Kamaliya before sewer system construction began

Photo courtesy Office of the Secretary of Public Affairs
42 Engineer January-April 2010

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description

(and Current Status)

Publications Currently Under Revision

FM 3-34 Engineer Operations Apr 09

ATTP 3-34.22

(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

Feb 09

(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.

Status: Revising manual to incorporate the Engineer Framework. Expect the manual 

to be published 2QFY11. 

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

Training and Doctrine Development Department

Doctrine Division, Engineer Branch

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

FM 3-90.4 

(FM 3-34.2)

Combined Arms Mobility 

Operations

Aug 00

Combat Engineering

This is a new manual that will encompass engineer operations in support of all engineer 

operations above the BCTs (division, corps, and theater). 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.

Status: Expect the manual to be published as an ATTP manual 3QFY10.

ATTP 3-34.23

(FM 3-34.23)

(FM 5-116)

(FM 5-100-15)

(FM 5-71-100)

Engineer Operations

–Echelons Above Brigade

Combat Team

Pending

Pending

(Feb 99)

(Jun 95)

(Apr 93)

This is a full revision, to include the 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. The Marine Corps is dual-designated on this manual, which 

will replace their Marine Corps Warfighting Publication (MCWP) 3-19.3, Marine AirGround Task Force (MAGTF) Breaching Operations.

Status: To be published 2QFY11.

FM 3-90.8 

(FM 5-102)

(FM 90-7)

Combined Arms Obstacle 

Integration

Sep 94;

Mar 85

This revised manual will contain the basic fundamentals associated with countermobility 

operations and will incorporate aspects of the contemporary operating environment 

(COE). The Marine Corps plans to adopt this manual also.

Status: On hold for release of FM 3-90, Tactics.

This new manual encompasses 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. 

Status: To become an Army Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (ATTP) manual 

3QFY10.

Organizational Manuals

General Engineering

TM 3-34.48 1/2

(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

Pending

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 Air Force (as well as the Navy and 

Marine Corps) plans to adopt the new manual also.

Status: Expect the manual to be published 4QFY10.

TM 3-34.41 Construction Planning and 

Estimating 

NEW This new manual is being produced by the Navy, in coordination with the Army and 

Air Force. The manual will provide the TTP and planning factors for conducting 

construction planning at the crew leader level. The manual will also provide useful 

expeditionary construction planning factors for use by planners at all levels. 

Status: Expect the manual to be published 2QFY11.
January-April 2010 Engineer 43

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description

(and Current Status)

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

Training and Doctrine Development Department

Doctrine Division, Engineer Branch

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

General Engineering (continued)

TM 3-34.43

(FM 3-34.451)

(FM 5-472)

Materials Testing Pending

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. The Marine Corps and Air Force plan to adopt this 

manual as well.

Status: Expect the manual to be published 3QFY10.

FM 3-34.65 1/2 

(FM 3-34.465)

(FM 3-34.465 

& FM 3-34.468)

Quarry Operations Pending

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. This is a collaborative effort with the Navy and 

Air Force and includes the newest technologies and current practices.

Status: Preparing Volume II. Initial draft staffing of both volumes 3QFY10.

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. This collaborative effort with the Navy, Air Force, and 

Marine Corps includes the newest technologies, current practices, and revised formulas.

Status: Expect the manual to be published 3QFY10.

TM 3-34.49

FM 3-34.469 

(FM 5-484)

Multi-Service Well Drilling 

Operations

Pending

Mar 94

Geospatial Engineering

ATTP 3-34.80

(FM 3-34.600)

(FM 3-34.230)

Geospatial Engineering Pending

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 engineer capabilities and activities that contribute to a clear understanding of 

the physical environment by providing geospatial information and service to commanders 

and staffs.

Status: Estimated date for posting to AKO is 3QFY10.

NOTEs: Current engineer publications can be accessed and downloaded in electronic format from the Reimer Digital Library at <http://www.

adtdl.army.mil> or the 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: Commercial 573-563-0003, 

DSN 676-0003, or <douglas.merrill@us.army.mil>. The development status of these manuals was current as of 10 February 2010.

FM 3-34.5 

(FM 3-100.4)

Environmental

Considerations

Pending

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.

Status: Estimated date for posting to Army Knowledge Online (AKO) is 3QFY10.

TM 3-34.56 Waste Management NEW This manual addresses issues not currently integrated into FM 3-34.5, Environmental 

Considerations. The manual will address the role of waste management in support of 

deployed forces, as well as the integration of waste management throughout the operations 

process, including its critical linkage to the composite risk management process. 

Status: Expect the manual to be published 4QFY10.
44 Engineer January-April 2010

The United States Marine Corps invests in the

Marine Wing Support Groups and its subordinate

Marine Wing Support Squadrons (MWSSs) to provide sustained aviation ground support to the aviation 

combat element (ACE) of the Marine Air-Ground Task 

Force (MAGTF). The primary mission of the MWSS is to 

enable sortie generation and expeditionary operations by 

Marine aviation. Marine aviation must constantly push the 

objective to be the extended fighting arm of the rifleman, 

available at a moment’s notice. The ability to swiftly create temporary, expedient helicopter landing zones; leapfrog 

forward arming and refueling points with the advancing 

force; conduct replenishment combat logistics operations; 

or rapidly construct expeditionary airfields and airbases 

permits Marine aviation to be in the front pocket of the 

MAGTF commander. Therefore, mobility of the MWSS on 

the battlefield is essential, and the route reconnaissance 

and clearance (R2C) capability coming to the MWSS will 

multiply the ACE’s expeditionary ability and continue to 

set it apart from the aviation organizations of the other 

Services. 

Maintaining Mobility

Mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs), 

also known as roadside bombs, remain the

No. 1 killer of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to inflicting casualties, these explosive 

hazards restrict MAGTF maneuver and mobility, therefore 

shaping our operations. R2C capability is of vital importance to maintain the commander’s freedom of maneuver 

and protect Marines. 

The strategic and operational effects of employing explosive hazards have been high, with a relatively low risk 

and investment for our enemies. The current operational 

context in United States Central Command’s area of operations and projected enemy tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) prove that IEDs will be a real and foreseeable 

threat to our military for years to come. As a result, there 

will be a high demand for route clearance equipment and 

personnel throughout the MAGTF, creating competing demands on limited assets and resources. 

General William L. “Spider” Nyland, former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, once said, “The 

demands of expeditionary maneuver warfare require the 

MAGTF commander to have assured access, an ability to 

conduct movement and maneuver, and an ability to retain 

the initiative with high operational tempo. The asymmetric nature of the mine threat and its increasing sophistication and proliferation combine to make the attainment of 

adequate countermine, counter-IED, and counterunexploded ordnance capabilities critical to the future of our Corps 

and its role as our nation’s most responsive force in readiness.”1

 To ensure flexible and responsive aviation ground 

support to the ACE, R2C must be an integral part of the 

MWSS and an assured capability of the Marine aircraft 

wing. This article discusses how the R2C concept was 

By Major Nick I. Brown and Major Taylor P. White
January-April 2010 Engineer 45

implemented by the MWSS supporting the 2d 

Marine Aircraft Wing (Forward) during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the benefits and challenges 

R2C presents to the ACE, and the way ahead for 

R2C within the wing. 

Providing Aviation Ground

Support

Upon arrival in Al Anbar Province in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, MWSS271 (Reinforced) began providing aviation 

ground support to the 2d Marine Aircraft Wing 

(Forward). This support included the following: 

■ Aircraft and ground refueling

■ Aircraft rescue and firefighting

■ Weather services

■ Motor transport support, to include convoy

operations and maintenance

■ Explosive ordnance disposal (EOD)

■ Utilities support

■ Heavy equipment support

■ Expeditionary airfield services, to include airfield marking and lighting, arresting gear

support, and certification of expeditionary

landing zones and lighting systems 

To help with these support missions, the MWSS 

has an organic platoon of combat engineers who

provide general and combat engineering support

to 2d Marine Aircraft Wing (Forward).

The United States Army relocated several route clearance teams to Afghanistan and other areas in Iraq. This 

shift in forces meant that Multinational Forces–West 

(MNF–W) had to field its own route clearance teams from 

Marine engineer units already in-theater. After assuming 

the aviation ground support mission, the MWSS explored 

the feasibility of retasking its combat engineer platoon to 

conduct route clearance in support of MNF–W operations.

The new R2C was a daunting challenge for MWSS-271. 

Having recently relieved two squadrons, the unit was fully 

engaged as the only MWSS in Al Anbar Province. Now it 

would have to prepare in-theater for a mission never before 

assigned to an MWSS. The combat engineers in the platoon 

had spent the past year preparing to conduct airfield repairs 

and honing their vertical construction skills, but now would 

train on equipment and techniques none of them had ever 

seen before. However, they also had to be prepared to provide mobility, survivability, and countermobility support to 

the ACE. Since most vertical construction was being handled by contractors, the combat engineers were able to support the ACE mission. Also, knowing that the MWSS would 

eventually inherit this capability, coupled with the number 

of convoys required to support outlying airfields, it was obvious that a route clearance team would benefit the ACE and 

the entire MAGTF. The limited number of combat engineers 

in the support squadron might have prevented fielding a 

dedicated R2C team in a more expeditionary environment or 

in a setting demanding more general engineering projects.

Task-Organizing for Route Clearance

The combat engineer platoon was task-organized 

for this specific mission. The nominal requirement 

for a route clearance platoon was about two dozen 

Marines with limited specialties. The combat engineer platoon at Al Asad was busy and had small detachments of 

engineers at other locations in the area, performing runway 

repairs at Al Taqaddum, vertical construction at Al Asad, 

general engineering tasks at Sahl Sinjar, and dust abatement throughout the area of operations. As a result, the 

support squadron assigned Marines of various specialties 

from other platoons to complete the team. The route clearance team consisted of Marines with additional specialties 

that proved valuable for maintaining equipment, providing security, and enabling combat engineers to focus on the 

technical aspects of the route clearance duties.

Due to the task organization of multiple Marine units 

into route clearance teams, the MNF–W counter-IED cell 

arranged for in-theater training by a mobile training team 

from the United States Marine Corps Engineer Center of 

Excellence that focused on vehicle employment, sweep 

The MWSS R2C team stages equipment for movement in Al Anbar 

Province. Pictured is the Husky Metal Detecting and Marking 

Vehicle.
46 Engineer January-April 2010

formations, and IED interrogation and identification. The 

newly formed MWSS R2C team also conducted mineresistant, ambush-protected vehicle licensing, demolitions 

training, day and night live-fire shoots, IED training lanes, 

combat lifesaver training, and communications training 

for seamless close air support coordination. Because of 

MNF–W needs, the coordination, standup, and training 

of the teams was greatly accelerated. The R2C program of 

record was devised in 2009 and continues to move toward 

maturity in both training and TTP. Furthermore, as enemy 

TTP change, our training and preparation will continue

to evolve. 

Assuming the Mission

Upon completion of training, the R2C team began 

transition training with the outgoing Army unit 

and assumed responsibility for the route clearance mission. The team conducted numerous missions 

searching the main supply routes for IEDs. Trash or debris determined not to be an IED was cleared away so 

that later convoys would not have to interrogate it for potential hazards. When IEDs were identified, MWSS EOD 

specialists were called to neutralize the devices. With 

the closure of several outlying airfields, flight line EOD

requirements were reduced and the MWSS-271 EOD team 

was eventually embedded with the R2C team. However, it 

would be difficult in the future to dedicate an EOD team 

from the ACE to full-time route clearance missions. Having 

dedicated EOD teams from the ACE perform the full-time 

route clearance mission depends on airfield requirements 

and ACE priorities. 

The R2C team was in general support to MNF–W but 

remained under the control of MWSS-271. To provide effective command and control of the route clearance mission, 

MWSS-271 designated an officer in the operations section 

who focused exclusively on route clearance operations. This 

dedicated resource in the Aviation Ground Support Operations Center was critical for coordinating R2C missions 

with higher headquarters, requesting and coordinating air 

coverage where needed, and coordinating necessary support with adjacent units. The R2C team remained in close 

contact with maneuver battalions in the regimental combat 

team’s area of operations to ensure proper coordination for 

movement, EOD support, quick-reaction force support, and 

seamless communication and intelligence feedback. Additionally, the team submitted joint tactical air requests to 

provide overwatch and escort of route clearance missions. 

The team’s innovative use of communication to coordinate 

its moves helped the squadron in its daily operations and 

served as a template for direct support of the ACE.

An MWSS Marine inspects the Buffalo Mine-Protected Clearance Vehicle (MPCV).
January-April 2010 Engineer 47

MWSS-271 conducted convoys and missions throughout Al Anbar Province involving helicopter landing zone

installation and removal as well as the retrieval of gear and 

equipment. Route clearance teams inspected and cleared 

routes before convoy movements, removing possible hazards from main supply routes and enabling unimpeded 

movements. The squadron demonstrated the flexibility of 

its combat engineers and support personnel while proving 

the concept of mobility support to the ACE.

The ability to clear a route of any length requires a 

huge investment in time, manpower, and resources. Highdemand, low-density capabilities such as R2C invariably 

(and justifiably) go to support the ground combat element 

or its supporting units. Organic R2C assets for the MWSS 

granted flexibility to the ACE commander and benefitted 

airfield and airbase support functions by increasing responsiveness and maintaining ground mobility to forward areas 

that required support. 

The advantages of having an R2C team in the ACE are 

not limited to support for convoy movement. The ability 

to detect explosive hazards would provide the following

advantages:

■ Enhance air base security

■ Protect personnel by clearing tactical areas such as forward arming and refueling points

■ Enable road movement essential to support highly

mobile and flexible helicopter and fixed-wing operations

■ Improve tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel

■ Assist in base recovery after attacks by allowing assessments of the airfield and facilities, detecting and mitigating unexploded ordnance, and clearing explosive

hazards

Facing New Challenges

The R2C capability will present new challenges and 

compete for the general engineering services necessary to support the ACE during operations. As an 

emerging mission for the MWSS, R2C will require the following considerations:

■ Employment and maintenance of the capability

■ Additional burdens on a limited number of combat engineers organic in the MWSS

■ Additional training requirements

■ Possible mission creep to support the MAGTF route

clearance requirement

As demonstrated by MWSS-271, the ability to conduct 

route clearance missions outside the ACE required flexibility and creativity. The task list for combat engineers in the 

ACE is long and diverse. Engineering services necessary to 

support the ACE during expeditionary operations include, 

but are not limited to, the following: 

■ Airfield surface repair (rapid runway repair)

■ Expeditionary structure construction (SEAhuts, strongback framing)

■ Assembly and construction of prefabricated shelters and

K-spans

■ Force protection and survivability construction

■ Limited combat engineering services (countermobility, 

obstacles), construction, improvement, and maintenance of helicopter landing zones

Supporting all these requirements, plus providing a fulltime R2C team in general support of MNF–W, with just 

one platoon requires careful prioritization. MWSS engineers have a diverse and demanding task list when supporting the ACE in an expeditionary environment. Adding 

a full-time R2C mission will compound the challenge while 

enhancing the squadron’s ability to support airfield operations. The squadron’s combat engineers are required to provide limited mobility and mine detection support and the 

R2C capability would enhance their ability to accomplish 

these tasks. 

Aviation ground support directly extends and expands 

the employment of Marine aviation. It is a decisive component that gives Marine aviation its expeditionary ability. 

With an organic R2C capability, the MWSSs will provide 

better support to the ACE. MWSS-271 proved the value and 

benefits of an R2C capability during Operation Iraqi Freedom. R2C presents many advantages as well as aviation 

ground support challenges, but the expeditionary enabler 

capability within the MWSS is an assured force multiplier 

to Marine aviation.

Major Brown is the Aviation Ground Support Coordinator, Headquarters, Marine Corps Department of Aviation, 

Washington, D.C. He graduated from the Combined Logistics Captains Career Course, Fort Lee, Virginia; the Weapons and Tactics Instructor Course, Yuma, Arizona; and the 

United States Army Command and General Staff College, 

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He holds a bachelor’s in political science from Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New 

York; and a master’s in public administration from Central 

Michigan University.

Major White is the executive officer of MWSS-271 and 

has been selected to attend the United States Marine Corps 

Command and Staff College, Quantico, Virginia, in the fall. 

He graduated from the Basic School and the Combat Engineer Officer Course, United States Marine Corps Engineer 

School, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; the Expeditionary 

Warfare School, Marine Base Quantico, Virginia; and holds 

a bachelor’s in political science from Tennessee Technological University.

Endnote

1

Marine Corps Gazette, “The Engineer Center of Excellence,” November 2008, <http://www.mca-marines.org/

gazette/nov08-prickett.asp>, accessed 4 March 2010.
48 Engineer January-April 2010

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 1-09.

I

n the early 6th century A.D., the Eastern Roman—or 

Byzantine—Empire’s eastern boundary was continuously tested by the Persian Empire’s aggressive expansion and growing influence. Dara was a fortified city and 

strategically important Byzantine military post that overlooked a major route between Persia and Mesopotamia. 

At the Battle of Dara in June 530 A.D., 25,000 Byzantine 

soldiers led by Flavius Belisarius routed a Persian expeditionary force of 50,000. The Byzantine victory substantially 

weakened Persia’s westernmost army, halting Persian efforts to mount an overwhelming offense across the eastern 

boundary of the Byzantine Empire and leaving Persia’s 

western border region vulnerable to seizure. Persia was 

therefore forced to negotiate terms for an enduring peace, 

and the Byzantine Empire’s integrity was preserved.1

The Byzantine victory was largely due to Belisarius’s effective intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB) and 

his employment of the principles of surprise and unity of 

command. Superior IPB helped Belisarius anticipate the 

Persian formations and actions and understand the effects 

of the terrain on a Persian attack on Dara. The Byzantine 

use of surprise contributed to a shocking counterattack that 

unbalanced the Persians and disintegrated their command 

and control. Finally, the unified Byzantine command structure enabled coordination and defensive flexibility to overcome Persian mass.

Phases of the Battle

The Battle of Dara can be divided into three distinct 

phases: 

■ Phase I. Initial formations and first Persian attack

■ Phase II. Persian right wing attack

■ Phase III. Persian left wing attack

Phase I

On the battle’s first day, the two forces placed their 

formations. Belisarius placed archers and infantry at his 

army’s center behind a considerable trench line, protecting 

their flanks with light Hun cavalry.2 Heavy cavalry troops 

were placed beyond those units to the outside, commanded 

by leaders named Bousez and John, while Belisarius maintained a heavy cavalry reserve in the rear. The Persian 

formation consisted of two long lines, each of which had 

centrally located infantry protected on either side by mixed 

cavalry.3 Following a brief correspondence between the opposing generals, Firuz—the Persian commander—sought 

to determine the Byzantine force’s response to an attack 

on its left. He ordered forward his right wing cavalry, 

commanded by Pityaxes. The Persian right wing cavalry 

pushed back the Byzantine left, and Pityaxes observed 

the possibility that he might be flanked as his Persians 

achieved depth and exposed their left side. Pityaxes therefore ordered his right wing cavalry to withdraw and avoid 

a decisive loss.

By Captain Andrew J. Dornstadter

Battle of Dara

“...maintaining an unseen 

and uncommitted force offers a commander the opportunity to surprise an enemy 

through the application of 

unexpected combat power...”
January-April 2010 Engineer 49

Observing the Persian effort against his left, Belisarius determined that the attack was the rehearsal of a likely future 

effort. He used this information to understand the Persians’ 

strengths and weaknesses and their reaction to his centrally 

positioned Hun cavalry. Belisarius identified the Persian 

vulnerability to a flank attack and anticipated a stronger effort against his center on the next such attack. Therefore, he 

concealed a small cavalry contingent, commanded by Pharas, behind the dominant hill north of the Byzantine defense. 

This small force could mount a surprise attack against the 

Persian right’s outside flank on their next attempt.

Belisarius’s observation of the Persian maneuver led to 

conclusions that drove a new course of action (COA), demonstrating the importance of IPB. Observation of the enemy helps a commander evaluate the threat and determine 

threat COAs, a process that helps the commander understand and visualize the enemy’s scheme of maneuver and 

plan friendly COAs accordingly.

This lesson is captured in modern United States Army 

doctrine. Field Manual (FM) 5-0, Army Planning and Orders Production, defines evaluating the threat as “analyzing intelligence to determine how adversaries normally 

organize for combat and conduct operations under similar 

circumstances. Knowing enemy capabilities and vulnerabilities allows the commander ... to make assumptions about 

the relative capabilities of friendly forces.”4 These steps of 

the IPB portion of mission analysis create or confirm the 

enemy’s doctrinal and situational templates. Commanders 

may then use those tools to develop and select COAs that 

accomplish their mission.

Phase II

On the second day of the battle, Belisarius’s assumption about the Persian COA was confirmed when the Persian right attacked the Byzantine left for the second time. 

Belisarius knew the Persians would be unprepared for 

counterattacks against both sides of their force, and he deployed Pharas’s concealed cavalry from behind the north 

hill. Together, that cavalry and the centrally positioned 

Hun cavalry flanked both sides of the advancing Persian 

right, effectively enveloping that force. The Byzantine left’s 

cavalry broke the Persian right’s attack, killing roughly 

3,000 Persian horsemen and foot soldiers and forcing any 

remaining soldiers from the Persian right to flee in disarray. This eroded Persian command and control and gave 

Belisarius an unopposed cavalry unit he could flexibly maneuver to assist other Byzantine units on the battlefield.

Concealing Pharas’s cavalry behind the north hill deceived the Persian leadership about the composition, disposition, and strength of forces defending from the Byzantine 

left, so the Persian force was surprised to find forces arrayed 

differently on the second attack. Shocked by a double flank, 

the Persian right wing fell apart, leaving the larger Persian 

army vulnerable to attacks from the Byzantine left’s flexible cavalry. This demonstrates the lesson that maintaining 

an unseen and uncommitted force offers commanders the 

opportunity to surprise an enemy through the application of 

unexpected combat power wherever he sees an advantage.

FM 3-0, Operations, lists surprise among the nine principles of war and defines it as “(striking) an enemy at a 

time or place or in a manner for which he is unprepared.”

Modern regional map of Turkey

Istanbul (formerly

Constantinople)

Oghuz

(formerly Dara)

100 km 
50 Engineer January-April 2010

It also states that surprise is “the reciprocal of security” and 

a “major contributor to shock,” meaning that effective use 

of surprise can seriously degrade an enemy’s security conditions and reduce the effectiveness of his command and 

control systems.5

Phase III

Also on the second day of the battle, following the Byzantine rout of the Persian right wing, Belisarius maneuvered 

his left wing cavalry to counter a likely Persian attack 

against his right. Firuz observed the failure of his attack 

against the Byzantine left and quickly committed a much 

stronger force—including the elite Immortals and units 

drawn from the Persian second line—to attack the Byzantine right wing cavalry commanded by John. This was effective use of shock action, and the Byzantine right initially 

gave way and withdrew. Belisarius responded quickly by 

ordering Hun cavalry from his right to attack the long Persian column’s inside flank and ordered Hun cavalry from 

his left to maneuver around the Persian formation’s rear 

and flank the other side.6 

The two flanks broke the Persian force’s advance, and 

its formation was divided in two. Baresmanes—the Persian 

left’s commander—fell in combat, and John’s withdrawn 

cavalry reorganized and rallied, contributing to the counterattack effort. Together, the flanking Hun cavalry and John’s 

cavalry killed more than 5,000 Persian horsemen and foot 

soldiers on the Byzantine right. Between this engagement 

and the rout of the Persian right wing, Belisarius’s forces 

destroyed nearly all of Firuz’s cavalry, leaving only the overmatched infantry line, which was exposed and vulnerable.

The Byzantines faced a large, capable Persian force that 

did not hesitate to mass against their smaller army. By 

consolidating responsibility and leadership under a single 

commander, Belisarius overcame a numeric disadvantage. 

He could quickly and clearly communicate his orders to subordinate commanders, and he could commit resources and 

apply combat power without confusion or delay. Belisarius’s 

unity of command allowed him to maneuver units where 

and when they were needed.

FM 3-0 defines unity of command as “(ensuring) unity of 

effort under one responsible commander” and also that “a 

single commander directs and coordinates the actions of all 

forces toward a common objective.” 7

Summary

The Byzantine victory at Dara reestablished the Roman tradition of military excellence on the empire’s eastern boundary. Under the command of Belisarius, the Byzantines capably outmaneuvered a much larger 

force of highly skilled and experienced Persian warriors. 

The keys to the Byzantine success lay in the commander’s 

mastery of IPB, surprise, and unity of command. Belisarius 

used these tools and principles to accurately predict the 

Persian scheme of maneuver and planned his defense accordingly, emphasizing surprise shock action and flexibility 

under unified effort and leadership. The outcome at Dara 

guaranteed the Byzantine Empire decades of relative peace 

along its eastern boundary, and it cemented Belisarius’s 

place as one of the greatest tactical leaders in history.

Captain Dornstadter is the officer in charge of operations 

for the Division Engineer, 1st Armor Division, Camp Liberty, Iraq. Previous assignments with the 1st Cavalry Division 

include platoon leader in Bravo Company, 20th Engineer 

Battalion; platoon leader and executive officer of Sapper 

Company, 2d Battalion, 8th Regiment; and task force engineer for 2d Battalion, 8th Regiment. He holds a bachelor’s in 

engineering from the United States Military Academy and a 

master’s in engineering management from Missouri University of Science and Technology (formerly the University of 

Missouri–Rolla.)

Endnotes

1

John Haldon, The Byzantine Wars, History Press, 

Gloucestershire, 1 November 2008, pp. 28-29.

2

Lieutenant Colonel Robert R. Leonhard, Belisarius and 

Small Force Theory, <http://www.armchairgeneral.com>, 

accessed 22 July 2008.

3

Ibid.

4

FM 5-0, Army Planning and Orders Production,

pp. 3-17, 3-18.

5

FM 3-0, Operations, p. 4-14.

6

Simon Goodenough, Tactical Genius in Battle, Phaidon 

Press, London, 1979, p.110.

7

FM 3-0, p. 4-14.

Detail from the 1776 painting entitled “Belisarius” by 

François-André Vincent. Public domain
January-April 2010 Engineer 51

Against the backdrop of current global military operations, the Korean Peninsula is quietly undergoing a .significant transformation. To ensure that the alliance between the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the United 

States maintains its long-term viability in Northeast Asia, 

the commander of United States Forces Korea (USFK) has 

implemented a transformation framework based on three 

priorities:

■ Defend the ROK

■ Strengthen the ROK–U.S. alliance

■ Improve the quality of life for those defending the

alliance

Two tasks derived from these priorities are to relocate 

all U.S. forces to two major hubs south of Seoul and extend 

accompanied tours to three years. These two tasks are 

monumental, requiring engineers at every level in Korea 

to develop creative solutions to support the commander’s 

vision.

Relocate U.S. Forces

Two major hubs for relocation of U.S. forces will be developed by transforming existing bases, camps, and garrisons into enduring installations, making Korea 

an “assignment of choice.” 

Southwestern Hub. Osan Air Base and United States 

Army Garrison (USAG)–Humphreys will be the centerpiece 

of the future U.S. Army force structure in Korea. This hub 

already is home to the headquarters of 7th Air Force and 

will become home to the headquarters for the future Korea 

Command, Eighth United States Army, and the 2d Infantry 

Division as U.S. forces realign south of the Han River.

Southeastern Hub. Facilities at Deagu, Chinhae, and 

Pusan will function as a logistics and storage center.

Two international agreements between the ROK and 

United States control the relocation of U.S. bases:

Land Partnership Plan (LPP). Signed in 2002, this 

agreement consolidates and relocates forces not based within the Seoul metropolitan area, namely the 2d Infantry Division. It also provides U.S. forces with dedicated time on 

Korean training areas and ranges and ensures that safety 

easements are provided and enforced.

Yongsan Relocation Plan (YRP). Signed in 2004, this 

agreement relocates U.S. forces and United Nations Command activities out of the Seoul metropolitan area. It also 

calls for a small U.S. force to remain in Seoul to support the 

United Nations Military Armistice Commission’s rear operations, facilitate communications, and maintain existing 

partnerships with the ROK government and other governmental and nongovernmental agencies in Seoul.

The execution of the ROK–U.S. agreements is a twophase process that began in 2002 when U.S. forces were 

stationed in more than 104 installations with substandard 

infrastructure. 

Phase I: Consolidation. This phase is nearly complete. 

The United States has consolidated its forces in Korea by 

closing 37 camps and installations and reducing its force 

by 8,000 personnel. To demonstrate its commitment and 

to strengthen the alliance, the United States has returned 

35 of the 37 closed camps and installations, totaling more 

than 12,800 acres, to its ROK allies. In turn, the ROK government has purchased more than 2,700 acres of land to 

support U.S. relocation directly. The ROK government has 

begun transferring that land to the United States with an 

By Major Rafael Pazos and Captain Miguel Uc
52 Engineer January-April 2010

initial grant of 205 acres at USAG–Humphreys, allowing 

the ROK–U.S. alliance to begin designing, planning, and 

coordinating more than $10 billion to construct new infrastructure inside and outside that facility.

Phase II: Relocation. During this phase, nearly 15,000 

U.S. Service members will move, and the planned construction program will be executed. The most significant component of the relocation will be the expansion of USAG–

Humphreys, located south of Seoul. The installation will be 

the location of the most intense construction efforts. Outside 

infrastructure development includes the construction of new 

roads; a rail extension; and an increase in communication, 

electricity, natural gas, water, and wastewater capacity 

in the surrounding communities to support the growth at 

USAG–Humphreys. Inside infrastructure includes new capacity to support increased facilities and population growth 

as well as modernizing existing facilities. It will be constructed in conjunction with land development that began in

December 2006. So far, 821 acres are under development, 

with another 1,500 acres still to be developed.

Facility construction has begun and will continue over 

the next several years. The major facilities to be constructed 

are the headquarters for Korea Command; Eighth United 

States Army; 2d Infantry Division; Installation Management

Command–Korea; medical facilities, family housing, and 

schools; communication centers; and the operational and support facilities necessary to relocate the 2d Infantry Division.

Of course, the success of the planned relocation is based 

on U.S. forces sustaining the readiness to “Fight Tonight,” 

which is both the motto and the mentality of the armed forces in the ROK. To do this, the United States will prioritize 

unit movements by balancing the maintenance of unit operational linkages and necessary construction efficiencies. 

Unit moves will be packaged and conducted in manageable 

components and placed where their locations would maximize their unit operations.

Extend Accompanied 

Tours

Traditionally, the majority of 

U.S. forces in Korea have 

been there on one-year unaccompanied tours, while accompanied tours lasted two years. Originally, U.S. families would have 

faced undue hardships during tours 

of Korea. However, changes in Korea and a desire to give Service 

members more time to spend with 

their families have led the move to 

more accompanied tours of longer 

length.

Throughout the realignment, 

units will maintain their full spectrum of operational and support capabilities. Efficiencies will 

be obtained by minimizing swing 

spaces (unit moves into temporary 

quarters pending final construction) and relocating units 

into their final facilities at their eventual enduring installations. The end goal will be a winning result for the alliance as it optimizes the use of ROK–U.S. land and enhances 

U.S. force protection, readiness, quality of life, safety, and

ROK–U.S. mutual defense.

Summary

I

n summary, U.S. priorities remain focused on transforming USFK to meet future security demands and to 

strengthen and maintain the ROK–U.S. alliance. The 

transformation and consolidation of U.S. forces is a major 

signal of continued U.S. military commitment to the ROK 

and the alliance, providing increased training opportunities and a less intrusive presence. The consolidation of 

U.S. forces increases readiness, provides efficiencies and 

cost savings, and enhances the quality of life of our Service 

members.

Major Pazos is the deputy commander of the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Gulf Region 

South District in Iraq. Previous assignments include facilities and construction project manager for Eighth United 

States Army; plans officer for the 2d Infantry Division; area 

commander, Peru, Equador, and Bolivia offices, USACE, 

Mobile District; and commander, Alpha Company, 249th 

Engineer Battalion (Prime Power). He holds a bachelor’s 

from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

and master’s from the University of Missouri–Rolla (now 

Missouri University of Science and Technology) and the 

United States Army School of Advanced Military Studies. 

He is a licensed professional engineer in Virginia.

Captain Uc is a facilities and construction officer for 

Eighth United States Army in the Republic of Korea. He 

holds a bachelor’s from the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, and a master’s from Webster

University.

Part of the massive construction underway at USAG–Humphreys
January-April 2010 Engineer 53