COMMANDANT

BG Bryan G. Watson

563-6192

<bryan.watson@us.army.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL Robert A. Tipton

563-6192

<robert.tipton@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 Jose Cepeda 

563-8045

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

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–ARNG

LTC Steven K. Knutzen 

563-8046

<steven.knutzen@us.army.mil>

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC Scott C. Johnson

563-7116

<scott.johnson@us.army.mil>

COMMANDER, 1st ENGINEER BRIGADE

COL Tommy R. Mize 

596-0224, DSN 581-0224

<tommy.mize@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT

COL Michael C. Presnell

563-4093

<mike.presnell@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

563-3869

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

ENGINEER DOCTRINE, MANSCEN DOT

Mr. Douglas K. Merrill

563-0003

<douglas.merrill@us.army.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT ORGANIZATION

LTC Stephen A. Danner

563-6282

<stephen.danner@us.army.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT MATERIEL

LTC Raymond E. Boyd

563-5055

<raymond.boyd@us.army.mil>

Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is prepared three times a 

year by the United States Army Engineer School and the 

MANSCEN Directorate of Training, 464 MANSCEN Loop, 

Suite 2661, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8926. 

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

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to MANSCEN 

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

464 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 2661, Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri 65473-8926.

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

at the preceding address. Telephone: (573) 563-4104, 

DSN 676-4104; e-mail address: <leon.engineer@conus.

army.mil>; Internet home page: <http://www.wood.army.

mil/engrmag/default.htm>.

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

informed of current and emerging developments within 

their areas of expertise for the purpose of enhancing their 

professional development. Views expressed are those of 

the authors and not those of the Department of Defense 

or its elements. The contents do not necessarily reflect official U.S. Army positions and do not change or supersede 

information in other U.S. Army publications. Use of news 

items constitutes neither affirmation of their accuracy nor 

product endorsement. Engineer reserves the right to edit 

material submitted for publication.

CONTENT is not copyrighted. Material may be reprinted if credit is given to Engineer and the author.

OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION is targeted to all engineer 

and engineer-related units.

PERSONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS are available for $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:

0925403

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

11 Dedication

30 The Engineer Writer’s Guide

MANAGING EDITOR

Shirley Bridges

EDITOR

Rick Brunk

CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

Susan Stevens

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Jennifer Morgan

COMMANDANT

Brigadier General Bryan G. Watson

FEATURES

05 Focusing on the Regiment: Education, Training, and Experience

By Ms. Shirley A. Bridges

08 Building Agile and Adaptive Leaders

By Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell, IV

12 ENFORCE 2009: Commandant’s Senior Leaders Discussion 

 By Lieutenant Colonel Scott C. Johnson

16 Army Professional Engineer Continuing Education

 By Dr. Troy L. Messer, Major Stephen M. Bert, Major Jason A. Evers, and 

Major Richard J. Gash

19 Building Great Engineers: Mentorship Working Group Update

By Lieutenant Colonel Scott C. Johnson

21 Warrant Officer of the Year Award

22 ENFORCE Council of Colonels

 By Colonel James R. Rowan (Retired)

23 A Lieutenant’s Look at the 2009 Best Sapper Competition

 By First Lieutenant Christopher D. Blackburn

26 Regimental Awards

27 Building Great Engineers: Creatively Mentoring Company Grade Officers

By Captain Robert R. Phillipson

31 Junior Engineer Officers Get True Professional Development

 By Captain L. Nicole Manteufel and Captain Jean D. Archer

33 Mandatory Degrees for NCOs

 By Major Dennis J. McGee

35 Army Seeks Records on War on Terrorism

 By Lieutenant Colonel Robert G. Smith

36 Yokosuka Naval Base Prepares for Nuclear Aircraft Carrier

 By Mr. Glenn T. Arakaki

40 Restoration of Davids Island

 By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

42 Engineer Doctrine Update

44 Engineer Skills Development Workshop

 By Captain Sharmistha Mohapatra

49 Lessons Learned: A Year in Iraq

By First Lieutenant Blake R. Hawkins

51 Building a Logistic Support Bridge in Afghanistan

 By First Lieutenant Christopher A. Selleck

53 Building Civil Capacity in Iraq

By Colonel Scott F. “Rock” Donahue and Major Daniel L. Higgins

58 Soldiers Run to Remember Fallen Hero

 By Sergeant Rebekah Malone

60 Joint Engineer–A Multinational Perspective

 By Major Jared L. Ware

62 Understanding the Army Environmental Structure

By Ms. Martha M. Miller and Ms. Laura Carney

66 Can the Modular Engineer Battalion Headquarters Be Multifunctional?

By Major William C. Hannan

Volume 39 PB 5-09-2 Headquarters, Department of the Army May-August 2009

NGINEE

UNITED STATES ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

MANSCEN

DIRECTORATE OF TRAINING

PUBLICATIONS BRANCH

May-August 2009 Engineer 1

71 Engineer Modularity

By Lieutenant Colonel Steve Danner 

and Mr. Don Wenzel

72 Protecting Secure Facilities From

Underground Intrusion Using

Seismic/Acoustic Sensor Arrays

By Lieutenant Colonel Robert E.

Tucker Ph.D., Colonel James R. 

Rowan (Retired), Dr. Jason R.

McKenna, Dr. Lillian D. Wakely, Mrs. 

Sarah McComas, Ms. Julie R. Kelley,

and Mr. Thomas E. Berry

77 Joint Engineer Planning and Execution System Course

By Ms. Tara C. Valencia and Mr. Brad 

Steffey
-

2 Engineer May-August 2009

Brigadier General Bryan G. Watson

Commandant, United States Army Engineer School

Clear The Way 

As the Commandant of the Regiment, one of the key tasks I’ve .charged you with is “Breeding

the Army’s Most Adaptive Leaders...

Inspired With Passion.” Our noncommissioned officers (NCOs) play the most 

crucial role. They are heralded as the 

backbone of the Army, but our NCO Corps 

is far more than that...far more vital 

to the life and legacy of this Regiment. 

Our NCOs—from sergeant to command 

sergeant major—are our Regiment’s DNA, 

responsible for breeding leaders. Let me 

explain and then give you a challenge.

From the outset of my career, I was—

and still am—awed by the role our NCOs 

play in the combat effectiveness and long-term vitality of 

our Regiment and our Army. Sometimes we don’t see it...or 

perhaps we have grown so accustomed to being surrounded 

by super NCOs that we take it for granted. But have a 

discussion with a leader of any other nation’s army, and 

it will quickly turn to the extraordinary professionalism 

of our NCO ranks. They see it immediately and attribute 

the superiority of our Army to one thing...our NCOs. It has 

been that way since our birth as a Regiment, an Army, and 

a Nation.

We often use various parts of the human body as 

analogies to describe someone’s contribution to the team. 

The cliché that NCOs are the backbone of the Army has 

been around forever...accentuated by NCOs with great 

pride and resolve whenever they recite the NCO Creed. 

I suppose that it alludes to a number of attributes—our 

Army’s courage to stand up for what is right being just one 

of them. But we also describe the role of NCOs as the eyes 

and ears of the commander, the muscle that propels the 

unit into action, the shoulders that do the heavy lifting, the 

brains that organize a unit for the mission, the hands that 

mold future generations of Soldiers, the backs on which 

a unit’s success rides, the heart of any organization, the 

exacting eyes that ensure unit discipline and guarantee 

readiness, the soul that keeps us going in adversity, and the 

conscience that discerns right from wrong when confronted 

with ambiguity. No doubt, NCOs are all these things

and more.

No single analogy fully describes the premier role of the 

NCO in our Army or captures our reliance on them as a 

Corps. But I’ll add one more analogy to the mix because 

I believe it captures the most important responsibility 

of our NCO and Corps. It is one they alone own. 

The Corps of NCOs is our Regiment and 

our Army’s DNA—that complex code 

found in all living cells. It is the living 

set of instructions that is passed from 

one cell to another during growth and 

tells the new cell (1) what it is to be, (2) 

what function it is to accomplish and how 

it fits in, (3) what form it is to take, and 

(4) how it contributes to the larger organ 

and its sense of belonging to something 

bigger than self; and ultimately, (5) it 

gives the body its unique identity and 

form. Like our NCOs, we don’t really see 

our DNA or its function. However, it is 

fundamental—the very essence of who 

we are.

Let me give you some examples of how NCOs pass on 

our Army’s DNA. It is the NCO that is the Soldier’s first 

and lifelong example of what right looks like. Every time 

an NCO interacts with a Soldier—on or off duty—there is 

a form of cell division that takes place. It passes on the 

enduring values and leadership traits that are unique 

hallmarks of our Army to the newer generation. As our 

primary trainers and coaches, NCOs have the responsibility 

to inculcate Soldiers with the necessary skills, inspiration, 

and gut-feel to be effective members of the team, unit, and 

Army. NCOs transform our Nation’s youth into Soldiers...

into Warriors...and then into Warrior Leaders. NCOs give 

Soldiers their very form and function and, in so doing, 

shape our Army. They breed their replacements! And it 

is the NCO who is an officer’s very first teacher, coach, 

and sometimes mentor—an officer’s most trusted and 

important advisor throughout his/her career. NCOs are 

experts—technically and tactically—and teach the officer to 

bridge from classroom theory to combat application. They 

coach leadership and keep officers grounded in Soldiering 

and Soldiers. They inspire us that we may inspire others. 

No matter what rank, we learn who we are from our 

NCO Corps.

So here is the question and my challenge to you: Have 

you promoted good “cell division” within your outfit? Do you 

foster a climate that allows NCOs to fulfill their role and 

obligation as the Engineer Regiment’s DNA? To our NCOs, 

are you actively passing on the DNA that is vital to our 

Regiment’s success and legacy? Are you helping police our 

ranks to ensure that the right DNA is passed on to new 

generations? Make it a priority; look for opportunities! 

Don’t do it because this is the Year of the NCO, but because 

our future depends on it...perhaps now more than ever.
May-August 2009 Engineer 3

Lead The Way 

Command Sergeant Major Robert J. Wells

United States Army Engineer School

My Other Battle Buddy

The Regiment and its Soldiers 

have to keep pace with growing 

technologies to continue to be 

relevant on the battlefield. The acceleration of technology is growing exponentially: What used to take twenty years 

to progress now takes five. 

A pleasant surprise we’ve seen in the 

last five years is the birth of a new friend 

on the battlefield—the robot. No more 

going out and investigating whether an 

improvised explosive device (IED) is real 

or fake. Got to clear a danger area? Call 

on your “Other Battle Buddy,” the robot. 

The technology that went into building today’s robot gives 

us enough situational awareness to allow us to make 

an informed decision. How much better will robots be in 

another five years?

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were used in combat 

before the ground versions. World War I started the concept 

by miniaturizing the Sopwith Camel and controlling the 

plane with radio frequencies. We continued to use UAVs in 

World War II as a training aid for antiaircraft gunners and 

also as attack aircraft. 

The first use of ground robots in combat was at the 

Battle of Normandy in World War II. The German army‘s 

engineers operated a robot called the Goliath. The robot 

was 2 feet wide and 4 feet long and carried approximately 

200 pounds of explosives. Operated by a German sapper 

using a telephone cable, the robot was designed to engage 

tanks and infantry formations and destroy buildings

and bridges. 

The Regiment’s engineers are learning to use robots 

as a part of framework operations. For route clearance 

teams, using robotics is an everyday occurrence. Mounted 

on the exterior of vehicles, robotic arms and cameras allow 

Soldiers to investigate potential hazards 

without exposing themselves to the 

possible threat. 

Robots unconditionally trust you 

to make the necessary decisions, and 

they are willing to go anywhere and do 

anything for you. You communicate with 

them either through a set of wires or 

by electronic signals. The speed of that 

communication is getting faster with the 

improvement of the computer (brain) and 

your reaction time, which will improve 

the more you work with your Other

Battle Buddy.

What kind of improvements will we 

see in future robots? Some things we can 

expect is a better interface than what we’re using now. The 

Army is working on a 3D simulator that trains Soldiers to 

go out on a patrol. It is only a matter of time before that 

type of interface is available for you and your robot out in 

the field. 

A robot isn’t limited by the size that we humans grow 

up to be: The size of a robot is entirely dependent on the 

task we require it to do for us. Routine tasks such as 

filling Hesco® barriers, searching confined areas, digging 

fighting positions, pulling security, recovering vehicles, 

performing routine maintenance, breaching obstacles, 

emplacing anchorage systems, surveying terrain, and 

crossing gaps are just a few tasks a robot can accomplish 

for the Regiment.

So let’s hear from the Regiment. What are your opinions 

of your Other Battle Buddy? What would you like to see 

from tomorrow’s robot? Send your ideas to me in an e-mail 

at <bobby.wells@us.army.mil> and we’ll include them in the 

next issue of the Engineer Professional Bulletin, along with 

an exclusive interview by one of our engineer Soldiers with a 

combat-tested robot that just returned from a deployment. 

Stay safe.

“Where a new invention promises to be useful, it ought to be tried.”

—Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. Founding Father, 

drafted the Declaration of Independence, third U.S. President
Chief Warrant Officer Five Robert K. Lamphear

Regimental Chief Warrant Officer 

Show The Way 

Wow! This year’s ENFORCE was 

everything that was promised 

and more. The conference featured two firsts: the inaugural Engineer 

Warrant Officer of the Year Award (see 

article on page 21) and the inaugural 

Council of Engineer Warrant Officers. 

I’m happy to report that 29 warrant officers attended our first Warrant Officer 

Council and information briefings.

The morning session included briefings from the Council members and a 

comprehensive Warrant Officer Education update by CW4 Mark Pitsenbarger 

of the Army Leader Development Office 

(ALDO). The afternoon session consisted 

of professionally facilitated discussions 

led by CW5 Mark Jensen, Command Chief Warrant Officer 

of the Kansas Army National Guard. The Council deliberated four main issues, and the recommendations are in 

various stages of implementation. The Council­—

Established a multicomponent recruiting committee to

create a professional trifold advertisement for the 210A

and 215D accessions program. Thanks to WO1 Dennis Connor of the United States Army Reserve for

developing the first draft. The United States Army

Recruiting Command has agreed to work with the

Engineer School to fund the trifold as part of a 

pilot test for warrant officer recruiting.

Voted to recommend to the Commandant that MOS

210A be renamed Construction Engineering Technician to formally recognize the change in mission requirements for this diverse MOS. These requirements, 

which support modularity and are driven by

FM 3-0, Stability and Support Operations, include

support of vertical platoons, survey and design teams/

detachments, engineer brigades, maneuver enhancement brigades (MEBs), divisions, and corps.

Will recommend to the Commandant that MOS 215D

be renamed Geospatial Engineering Technician to

better reflect the core mission of geospatial warrant

officers and align this warrant officer MOS with its

NCO feeder MOS, Geospatial Engineer.

Validated the proposed change to the standards of

grade for MOS 210A to reflect the changes in mission

requirements being executed in both training and assignments of 210As. 

CW4 Pitsenbarger provided a very timely update

to the Warrant Officer Council that included the current

■

■

■

■

status on the Warrant Officer Staff 

Course (WOSC) and Warrant Officer

Senior Staff Course (WOSSC) redesigns.

The redesigned WOSC, which was implemented in January 2008, will expand 

to a 5-week course in FY11 and include a 

revamped distributed learning (dL) phase. 

In addition, a CW4 technical functional 

course will be added as part of the WOSC. 

Army funding for development of the 

new 210A and 215D technical functional

courses has been approved, and the Engineer School will soon receive the first 

year’s funding allotment. The WOSSC, the 

capstone Professional Military Education 

(PME) for CW5s, has been increased from 

2 to 4 weeks with a dL portion as well. 

The first pilot class will be conducted this summer, with

final implementation in FY11. 

Training experts at the Directorate of Training and 

Leader Development, led by CW4 Phil Mowatt, LTC Phillip Kaufmann, and Dr. Troy Messer, have received the 

Commandant’s approval and support for the expansion of 

the 210A Warrant Officer Basic Course from 12 weeks to 

26 weeks. This extraordinary effort, if approved by TRADOC, will fundamentally change both what we train and 

how we train our Construction Engineering Technicians. 

The submission of this program of instruction (POI) change 

addresses a shift in strategy for integrating 210A warrant 

officers in support of modularity, doctrine, and standards 

of grade changes. The new course will bridge the technical competency gap created under modularity and FM 3-0. 

More to follow as the staffing process continues with this 

major Engineer School initiative.

While the ongoing improvements in both leader and 

technical training at the institutional level are impressive, 

PME alone will not be enough to fully Breed the Best Leaders or Build Great Engineers. As the commandant stated,

“Great leaders improve on the areas they are weak in.”

I challenge you to recognize your weaknesses and use the 

resources at your disposal to improve your leadership abilities and technical competency. Start and/or complete your 

civilian education with an engineering emphasis, enroll in 

dL courses, or complete certification courses related to your 

warrant officer specialty. Take the Commandant’s challenge, and search out engineering firms at your duty station and develop training relationships­—sabbaticals—for 

as little as 30 days or as long as 90 days, working with 

industry. Talk to your commander and get it started—

today. Keep your technological edge—it’s what makes you 

a warrant officer! Stay safe. Essayons!

4 Engineer May-August 2009
May-August 2009 Engineer 5

“We did a little thing with the commanders 

yesterday,” he said. “We had them think 

about, or write down, the name of someone 

they really admire, and then write one characteristic of 

that person that they admire. It’s interesting that a number 

of them said, ‘It’s my father.’”

LTG Van Antwerp spoke of his father as being someone 

he greatly admired. “Speaking of education and training, 

we built a number of houses all along the way. My dad’s 

a mechanical engineer, so I’m a mechanical engineer. Because he loved it, I love it. And so it just was a natural. In 

one of the houses, we put a grease pit in the garage because 

he loved cars. And the grease pit was cool—it had steps going down to it, and we had a steel plate that was on rollers, 

so it was easy to roll that back and expose the pit, then you 

could drive in and never have to jack your car up.” 

He said that it was in that garage with his dad that 

he first learned the principle of quantity and quality time. And one of the considerations he thinks we 

have today is how to give the right amount of quantity and quality time to the units for which we have 

responsibility for oversight, but that are not at our own installation. “How do you do that so a captain or a lieutenant 

doesn’t feel abandoned out there?” he asked. “How do you 

do it when the battalion headquarters is gone and several 

of the companies are still on the installation? I think we’re 

under stress in that today.” 

“Here’s what I learned from my dad,” he said. You never 

get to the quality time until you give the quantity. I know 

with my kids, you can say, ‘How was your day?’ and you 

won’t get the quality. But if you go out and wrestle and you 

play some football and stuff and then you’re all sweaty and 

you’re sitting on the front porch drinking some Gatorade©, 

you might find out how their day went. But it takes that. So 

I’m into quantity. And that’s why this week, I hope you felt 

you had the time to actually spend some quantity time and 

get to that quality.”

Van Antwerp said that he drove a 1953 Riley convertible to high school. He explained that for those who 

didn’t know what a Riley is, it’s an English car that 

looks like a big MG. “It was really a cool car,” he said, 

“but it spent a lot of time in our garage because the Riley 

By Ms. Shirley A. Bridges

Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp, 52d Chief of Engineers, spoke at the 2009 ENFORCE Conference, using 

many of his own experiences when growing up to illustrate various aspects of education, training, and experience that were 

applicable to Army leaders. And instead of giving his views on the current state of the Engineer Regiment, he handed an 

index card to each person in the audience, and throughout his speech, he mentioned areas where he wanted input from 

the attendees to be written on the cards. Several of his topics came from books that are being used in the Building Great 

Engineers campaign.
6 Engineer May-August 2009

was no longer being made and parts were hard to find. 

My dad was a great mechanic, and he was also an inventor. 

He had a machine shop in our basement, and once when my 

Riley needed a valve, my dad found one from a GM vehicle, 

and he redesigned it on a lathe to fit my car. And that was 

my dad.” 

He said that in that garage, he learned how to train 

himself and others, which has come in handy during 

his 37 years in the Army. At first it was him watching 

his dad work. And his dad would say, “I need a 3/8-inch 

wrench—or a 10-millimeter wrench”—or whatever. And 

whichever tool he asked for would be perfect for that job. 

“That was an art,” Van Antwerp said, “but after spending so much time doing that sort of thing, my dad just 

knew what he needed. But it was very interesting; at 

first, I just handed him his tools and watched closely.

I learned how he organized things.” 

“I learned a lot from my dad,” he said. “Some of it was 

from spoken things, but a lot of times it was from just observation. Books will tell you that 90 percent of learning—

especially for men—comes through your eyes. And my dad 

knew that; we would talk some, but a lot of it was just silent 

movement. As I continued to help him, I wanted to learn to 

hand that 10 millimeter box wrench to him before he asked 

for it, so I started to anticipate what he’d need. And then 

over time, the conversation changed to ‘Why don’t you go 

ahead and take that nut off?’ or ‘You go ahead and put that 

part back together.’ Then eventually it was, ‘Hey, Dad. I’m 

doing this; can I use the garage?’ And he would say, ‘If you 

need any help, I’ll come out.’”

“That’s how I learned to train,” Van Antwerp said. “And 

it was an awesome upbringing that I had. So I bring that 

to the table. We’re all products of our experiences. So the 

message here today is that your example is enormously important to our Army and what you’re doing.”

He later spoke of the example that the Regiment leadership is trying to set. “We want to set the example of getting the right people in the right seat. We try and match up 

your skills, your experiences, your education—but the other 

thing we’re trying to do is match what you want to do to your 

job. Because we all know that if you’re passionate, if we can 

get you in that place where your passion can come out, that 

passion just increases your talent, and it also makes it easy 

for the people you work for. That’s what I want. If we get 

you in, all we have to do is give you the boundaries and keep 

you from just going off, but we know you will do it.” 

He said that in this day and age, he thinks we automatically dismiss any kind of individual personnel replacements. “The truth is,” he said, “in the Army, the Corps of 

Engineers, we have 20 or 30 percent of our people going in 

on individual replacement. So it isn’t a pure ARFORGEN; 

maybe for a brigade combat team (BCT) it is, but not necessarily for us. So there are two types of handoffs going here—

you have handoffs of units, and then you have handoffs

of people.” 

Then he asked the group to write three things on the 

index card that they’d been given earlier: 

Disciplined people

Disciplined thought

Disciplined action

Using the framework from the book Good to Great1 by 

Jim Collins, disciplined people refers to having the right 

people on the bus and in the right seat on the bus. It has 

the notion of a Level 5 Leader—one with personal humility 

who has an insatiable will for the organization to go where 

it needs to go. And he or she sees that picture and is going to take you there—through persuasiveness or influence. 

“But,” he said, “if you get into a unit and you think the first 

thing you’re going to do is put your plan into effect, I suggest to you that there’s one thing that has to happen before 

that: The unit has to buy into you before it will buy into 

where you want to go. So you establish that through your 

character, your principles—through your being. And then a 

lot of them will go with you. That’s the personnel part.” 

Disciplined thought is what you do when you get the 

right people and they put disciplined thought against your 

business. “Let me give you a thought on priorities,” he said. 

“The reason I use a timer when I speak is to have a little 

fun, but the other part of it is that we have to operate efficiently—and within the time we’re allotted. And one of the 

things we cannot create more of is time. A lot of you may 

wonder—and people often ask me: ‘How are you doing it? 

How do you manage your time?’”

“Well,” he said, “I’ll give you a little insight into how 

I do it. I believe very much in a simple principle called 

the Pareto Principle—a 20-80 principle. For a long time 

I’ve thought about how to get this done when you go into 

a new job. And how do you do it so that you are getting 

the max out of your time? Well, here’s what the principle says: If you have a picnic, 20 percent of the people 

you invite will eat 80 percent of the food. Here’s what it 

means in your priorities: the top 20 percent of your priorities will produce about 80 percent of the productive 

results. I would also suggest that 20 percent of your time 

yields about 80 percent of the results—those really focused

efforts.” 

■

■

■

“The unit has to buy into you 

before it will buy into where 

you want to go. So you

establish that through your 

character, your principles—

through your being. And then 

a lot of them will go with you. 

That’s the personnel part.”
Van Antwerp said that an interesting thing is that if 

you’re a lion trainer and you go into a lion cage, you take 

two things— a whip and a chair. Normally, between the 

whip and the chair you’re going to get the lion to sit down. 

The chair has four legs on it. Since a lion or a wild animal is 

used to attacking a single thing, when you put that chair in 

the face of the lion, it paralyzes the lion. “What is it about 

the chair that paralyzes the lion? Well, it’s those four legs 

coming at it, all at the same rate. And the lion can’t figure 

out which leg is the most important. It’s all about focus.” 

“If we aren’t careful, we can do the same thing to our people. We can give them so many things that they’re all coming at them, and if we don’t say, ‘That leg up there—that is 

the important leg,’ they won’t know what to do first. But I 

have plenty of time to do what I do. My saying is that I have 

plenty of time to do what God needs me to do; I don’t have 

all the time to do what I want to do, but you have to have 

some focus on this. So that’s what we have to be about.”

In the disciplined people part of their card, he asked the 

group to write their advice to him or the Engineer School 

commandant on something they should take up that has 

to do with the people part of this. “I know we have some 

groups that are doing the Building Great Engineers thing, 

and it’s going to be a great day tomorrow as we look at that,” 

he said. “But if you think we have a real problem with putting our arms around our engineers who are in other locations where we don’t have the lieutenant colonels and the 

colonels, then let me know.” 

Van Antwerp said that he also wanted the attendees to 

put on their card what they think the Regiment should be 

putting disciplined thought into today. “It may be something 

that you know we’re already taking on, and you just write 

that down and put an exclamation point—that’s where you 

ought to be going,” he said. “But if you’re thinking about 

something that you haven’t heard here—and you think the 

Regiment needs to be thinking about it—then write that 

on your card. I talk a lot about Wayne Gretzky and hockey 

because I love it, but when Gretzky was asked ‘What’s your 

secret?’ he said, ‘I skate to where the puck is going to be.’ 

That’s the disciplined thought part for leaders—Where is 

the puck going to be?—so help us out on that one.” 

“Finally,” he said, “if you think we’re at the point where 

we should be putting disciplined action into something 

we’re not putting it into today—something that we’re still 

talking about and you want to say, ‘I wish we’d stop talking 

about this and just do it’—then put a ‘Just do it!’ on the bottom of the card.” 

Van Antwerp reemphasized with attendees his “Big 

Four” for great organizations. He said that some of these 

apply directly to their organization, and some apply more to 

the Corps of Engineers. “But there’s one thing you have to 

do for people if you’re going to take them somewhere—you 

have to create a picture of what it looks like there. Here’s 

my picture for the Corps of Engineers”:

You have to deliver a superior performance 

every time. He said that that’s what we’re ultimately paying for. “We have that in our creed,” he said:

‘I’ll always place the mission first.’ You have to deliver. 

When that BCT commander turns to you and asks, ‘Engineer, where can we put a forward operating base so we 

can have running water and some security? Tell me what 

I need—barriers, T-walls, all that.’ You don’t want to walk 

backward and give them the impression you don’t know 

what you’re doing there, so how do we make sure that we 

have the right people there and that we can deliver? We 

have to deliver. Those of us who have experienced Katrina 

know that we’re only as good as our last project.”

 You’ll set the standard for your profession. He said 

that if you’re in real estate, get a real estate license; if you’re 

a program or project manager, get a program management 

professional (PMP) certification; if you’re an engineer or an 

architect, get your professional engineer (PE) certification. 

“Let’s crank it up professionally, and then when you deal 

with our contractors and other partners, you’re dealing at 

the same level.” 

Where you (as a unit) and you alone can make that 

unique contribution to this nation or other nations, 

you need to do that. He said that in the Corps of Engineers, one of those unique things is about water. “We know a 

lot about water. We’re very developed, compared to Africa or 

other places, on reservoirs and how to deliver hydropower. 

Another thing, something that only we could do, was build 

a fence along the southern border of this country. Why? Because they needed our regulatory expertise, and they needed 

our real estate. And we have many other projects.”

You have to make sure your unit is built to last. 

Jim Collins wrote Built to Last2 before he wrote Good to 

Great; that is one of our marks. For the Corps of Engineers, 

what does that mean today? “Having the right people rightseated on the bus,” he said, “and we need 3,300 more of 

them than we have. We know what we need to do to get 

the job done. And what we don’t want to do is hire temporary workers to do that; we want to hire Department of the 

Army civilians so when we come through this, we’re going to look back and say we built this to last. So, those are

our markers.” 

“I so appreciate all of you,” he said. “It’s an honor and 

a privilege to be a part of this. I wake up every day and 

express in my heart what a privilege it is that I get to do 

this—for whatever time they’ll leave me here. And I hope 

it’s forever.” 

“God bless you all; keep up the great work.” 

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

the past 14 years. She holds a bachelor’s from Missouri State 

University, Springfield, Missouri.

Endnotes

1

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

2001.

2

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

Business: New York, 1994, 1997.

May-August 2009 Engineer 7
8 Engineer May-August 2009

Engineer history is inundated with success stories of 

agile and adaptive leaders contributing to our nation’s progress. You are the organization that gave 

us the United States Military Academy, the Washington 

Monument, the Panama Canal, and the Pentagon, and you 

are in greater demand today than ever before.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers is at work 

in more than 90 countries, supporting 159 Army installations and 91 Air Force installations and operating 609 dams 

and 257 navigation lock chambers at hundreds of sites. You 

operate 24 percent of America’s hydropower capacity. Engineers are serving as architects, ecologists, geologists, park 

rangers, accountants, cartographers, chemists and, most 

notably, as warriors. 

Since 11 September 2001, approximately 70 percent of 

our engineer force—that’s including the newest engineers 

that haven’t even had an opportunity to deploy—have 

served our nation in a hostile area at least once. More than 

30 percent have deployed multiple times. And it’s more than 

just deployments...the unique, but critical, aspect of engineer life is the important and complex missions you perform daily all over the world and many in the continental 

United States. From the mountains of Afghanistan to the 

Red River in North Dakota, Army engineers are the most 

diverse group of selfless servants in our Army today. 

Engineer versatility is illustrated in the accomplishments of the Building Great Engineers campaign that 

includes improvements in working with accessions, improvements in the classroom, and efforts to align assignments with training and education. Engineers are 

“clearing the route” and “marking the lane” for all of us 

to move forward and meet the challenges of the 21st

century—a century that is marked by the rising threat of 

a violent extremist movement that seeks to create anarchy and instability throughout the international system. 

Within this system, we also face emerging nations that are 

discontented with the status quo and seeking a new global 

balance of power. As our nation continues into this era of 

uncertainty and persistent conflict, the lines separating 

war and peace, enemy and friend, have blurred and no 

Note: This article is adapted from a speech given on 23 April 2009 to attendees of ENFORCE 2009 at Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri.

By Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell, IV

“Engineers are ‘clearing 

the route’ and ‘marking the 

lane’ for all of us to move 

forward and meet the challenges of the 21st century....”
May-August 2009 Engineer 9

longer conform to the clear delineations 

we once knew. 

Understanding how to operate in this 

complex and ever-changing environment 

of the 21st century is critical to the development of our leaders. This environment 

will require leveraging every element of 

our national power and includes cooperating and collaborating with nongovernmental and international organizations. 

As our President said during his recent 

announcement of a comprehensive Afghanistan strategy, “A campaign against 

extremism will not succeed with bullets 

or bombs alone...to achieve our goals 

we need a stronger, smarter, and comprehensive strategy.” This means that 

our Army has a requirement to develop 

leaders capable of operating effectively 

within this comprehensive approach. 

Our country needs agile and adaptive leaders to lead us in this changing 

world—the 21st century (see Figure 1). 

The Chief of Staff of our Army has used 

the analogy that our force must resemble a middleweight fighter. We must be 

a lean, agile, and rapidly adaptive force 

with the endurance and knockout power to take on and defeat any opponent, 

regardless of weight class. By carefully 

studying his adversaries and with modification to the fighter’s training and diet, 

the middleweight can easily move between weight classes and defeat any opponent. Just as with that middleweight 

fighter, our Army needs to be equally 

versatile, equally decisive, and equally

lethal. 

We must understand that military 

force—although necessary—is not sufficient; it does not win the peace. Probably no one understands that better 

than you! Engineers are lethal warriors 

and nation builders. You have always operated across the 

full spectrum of conflict; you embody better than anyone 

else our nation’s destructive and constructive capabilities. 

As engineers, being agile and adaptive is already in your 

DNA; you get it...and it could not be more clearly illustrated than in the 4th Engineer Battalion when they just 

received a change of mission from Iraq to Afghanistan—

after operating in Baghdad for only two weeks. 

We need agile and adaptive leaders who are broad 

enough to handle the challenges of full spectrum operations in this era of persistent conflict. These agile and adaptive leaders must be critical and creative thinkers, they must be competent and confident 

communicators, and they must be capable of operating 

with a comprehensive approach to meet these emerging 

challenges. These critical attributes will enable our leaders 

to contend with offensive, defensive, and stability operations simultaneously...leaders who can integrate combined 

arms, integrate with host nation forces, and be perceptive 

enough to discern changes in the operational environment 

in order to anticipate transitions. 

What do we mean by critical and creative thinkers, and how does that translate to leader development 

(see Figure 2)? Well, some people will tell you the glass 

is half full, and others will say it is half empty. But the 

engineer will tell you the glass is twice the size it needs

to be. This is the kind of out-of-the-box thinking we need—

critical and creative thinkers who are courageous enough 

Figure 1

Building Agile and Adaptive Leaders

Figure 2

Critical and Creative Thinkers
to see and exploit opportunities in the challenges and complexities of the 21st century.

What good are critical and creative thinkers if they 

cannot communicate their ideas? Our leaders must be 

competent and confident communicators (see Figure 3). 

Competence, we know, builds confidence, which leads to 

capable communication. We must strengthen our leaders’ 

ability to communicate in a wide variety of information 

mediums. So how do we develop competent and confident

communicators? 

Knowing that we will always operate in a joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational (JIIM) 

environment makes this communication even more

important. We must recognize that our leaders will not 

only be required to communicate across foreign cultures but also must know and understand how other 

10 Engineer May-August 2009

organizations operate (such as the Iraqi army, 

Department of State, nongovernmental organizations, private voluntary organizations, 

businesses, and academia). Our leaders must 

be capable of operating with a comprehensive approach (see Figure 4). Leaders must 

cooperate, coordinate, and collaborate across 

multiple agencies from both within and outside the U.S. government. Our leaders must 

be able to unite diverse groups of people and 

work toward a shared goal. Agile and adaptive leaders are comfortable in the complex 

and ambiguous environments we already 

face today and are going to be the combat multiplier we need in the 21st century. 

Engineers consistently work in these complex environments, operating with Air 

Force REDHORSE squadrons, Navy Seabee units, the National Geospatial Agency, the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), and 

other foreign engineer forces and civilian 

agencies to accomplish missions in Iraq,

Afghanistan, and around the globe. 

We’ve discussed how to develop agile and 

adaptive leaders and the kinds of attributes 

those leaders must possess to succeed in the 

21st century, but what about facilitating this 

lifelong development in units and organizations around the Army? What about encouraging and empowering these agile and adaptive 

leaders? That is a real challenge of ours. To 

do so, we must be courageous in our approach 

(see Figure 5, page 11). 

We build all these leader skills through 

education, training, and experience. We must 

be mindful as we move forward that we don’t 

make the mistake of substituting experience 

for education. Experience is critical, as long as 

it is the right experience; and our training is 

outstanding, as long as it is the right training. 

But what prepares leaders to make decisions in a complex 

uncertain environment is the combination of education, experience, and training. The combination of all three is what 

gives us our greatest versatility. 

Our Army Values and the Warrior Ethos will remain 

the underpinning of our educational and training efforts as they prescribe conditions that facilitate trust, 

interdependence, and cohesion among Soldiers. They 

also set the standard for how our Army will interact 

with individuals outside of the Army. All this must be 

grounded in our Army Values and the Warrior Ethos—

the same Army Values and Warrior Ethos epitomized 

by approximately 1,800 engineers that have received

valorous awards for their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Examples of this courageous action include 

the following:

Competent and Confident Communicators

Figure 3

Figure 4

Capable of a Comprehensive Approach
Billy Zar, the captain of a debris-removal tug boat

operating in Texas, reacted instinctively when his

team saw a 500-gallon fuel tank floating in dangerously high water in the Industrial Canal during 

Hurricane Gustav. They knew that if the tank were 

to hit the flood wall or other important structures, 

there could be grave consequences. So, without hesitation, Billy courageously jumped into the water and

corralled the 500-gallon tank, possibly saving countless lives and protecting property. For his actions, he 

was recognized by Lieutenant General Robert B. Van 

Antwerp, Chief of Engineers.

Staff Sergeant Lincoln Dockery, who charged an enemy position to fight through an enemy ambush in

Afghanistan. During the charge, Dockery was injured, but he kept going despite intense enemy fire

that included hand grenades and incoming rocketpropelled grenades. After pushing the enemy back

■

■

from their position, close air support was called and

reported that there were more than 30 enemy fighters. For his actions, he was awarded the Silver Star. 

Sergeant First Class Paul Smith’s courageous actions

to defeat an enemy attack at the Baghdad International Airport resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of

numerous wounded Soldiers. For his actions, he was

awarded the Medal of Honor. 

Our Soldiers are blessed with these types of leaders...

courageous, selfless, serving leaders. We owe it to our nation to develop leaders of character and value...leaders who 

have the mental agility to anticipate and adapt to uncertain 

or changing situations...leaders who can integrate the tools 

of statecraft with our military forces, international partners, humanitarian organizations, and the private sector...

leaders who can forge unity of effort among a very rich and 

diverse group of actors to shape a better future . . . a better 

tomorrow. And those leaders are sitting in 

this auditorium today. Each and every one 

of you bears this mantle of leadership. You 

are our most versatile force, and for more 

than 200 years our nation has called on 

you to be the most agile and adaptive element in our Army...and we will continue to 

do so in the 21st century. 

Thank you for inviting me to be a part of 

ENFORCE 2009. 

Lieutenant General Caldwell is the 

Commanding General, United States Army 

Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth, and the Commandant, United 

States Army Command and General Staff 

College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

■

Figure 5

May-August 2009 Engineer 11

Dedication

The following members of the Engineer Regiment have been lost in the War on Terrorism since the last issue of Engineer, 

or were inadvertently omitted from a previous list. We dedicate this issue to them.

George, Major Jason E. 252d Combined Arms Battalion, 30th Heavy Brigade Combat Team Fayetteville, North Carolina

Keesling, Specialist Chancellor A. 961st Engineer Company, 844th Engineer Battalion Sharonville, Ohio 

Johnson, Jr., Specialist Isaac L. Alpha Company, 48th Brigade Special Troops Battalion Statesboro, Georgia

Wallace, Sergeant Daniel W. Charlie Company, 201st Engineer Battalion Cynthiana, Kentucky

Williams, First Lieutenant Derwin I. Troop B, 2d Battalion, 106th Cavalry Regiment Dixon, Illinois

Encouraging Leader Development
12 Engineer May-August 2009

Through this article, other ENFORCE articles in the 

Engineer Professional Bulletin, and recent and future engagements with senior leaders within the 

Regiment, the goal is to expand the discussion, validate the 

content, and get your input. Additionally, this summary 

will increase your situational awareness with regard to the 

issues facing the Regiment and the commandant’s priorities. As always, your voice is important in this refinement 

process, and we welcome your comments.

Summary

The discussion began with the Commandant’s 

thoughts on the Engineer Regiment and its place in 

the United States Army. 

The Engineer Regiment is a subprofession of the larger 

profession of arms (see Figure 1, page 13). It is a body of 

people—not just equipment, organizations, or technology—

with a passion or calling to serve as Warriors with technical skills. These technical skills set the Engineer Regiment 

apart via its unique services and knowledge that the Army 

needs to accomplish its missions. To prepare our Soldiers 

and civilians to accomplish their missions in support of the 

Army, the Regiment requires special education, apprenticeships, and practice. 

As with any endeavor in the Army, there is a constant tension between being effective and trying to garner 

efficiencies. For the Engineer Regiment, effectiveness is 

paramount and must trump efficiency. Likewise, service 

to the Army (our client) trumps self-gain and advancement 

of the Regiment. In other words, a decision that negatively 

impacts the Regiment in terms of personnel, equipment, 

material, or other measurable element is the right decision 

if the overall benefit to the Army is positive. This isn’t to 

say that the Engineer Regiment is stepping up to be a bill 

payer. To the contrary, it simply means that the Engineer 

Regiment cannot be seen as being parochial in all decisions 

and actions. 

With this type of attitude and approach, the Engineer 

Regiment will continue to enjoy a special relationship of 

trust within the Army. In turn, this will allow the Regiment to assess, train, and develop the right people; organize 

itself to best serve the Army; and hold itself accountable 

for its successes and failures. This accountability includes 

the need to regulate and police itself and its personnel via 

evaluations and administrative actions given and taken by 

our senior leaders. 

A key aspect of the Engineer Regiment’s success is its 

adaptability. The ongoing modification and changes to the 

modular engineer force that are occurring due to feedback 

from operations, and the leader development Building Great 

Engineers initiatives are prime examples of our institutional 

adaptability. Working hand in hand with the United States 

T..hen Colonel Bryan G. Watson, United States Army Engineer School Commandant, addressed the ENFORCE 2009

 attendees midweek of the conference, with the purpose of opening a dialogue within the Regiment concerning its future 

and direction. Embedded in the discussion were his initial assessment and thoughts on the purpose and unique aspects 

of the Regiment and objectives and key initiatives that support and improve the Regiment’s mission. The following is a summary of that discussion. You can see a video of the entire presentation at the Engineer School Knowledge Network (ESKN) at 

<https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/126> .

By Lieutenant Colonel Scott C. Johnson
May-August 2009 Engineer 13

Army Maneuver Support Center (MANSCEN), the United 

States Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), 

and the Department of the Army, the Engineer Regiment is 

continuing to look for innovative ways to increase its effectiveness while working within the left and right limits imposed by higher headquarters due to resource constraints 

on the Army (that’s the tension between effectiveness and 

efficiency discussed earlier). 

Commandant’s Campaign Plan Framework 

– The Purpose of the Profession of Army 

Engineers

I

t is important for everyone to understand the Engineer 

Regiment’s purpose and its role in the overall military 

profession within the United States Army (see Figure 2, page 14). First and foremost, engineers bring three 

unique capabilities that support the overall effort of the 

Army during operations and drive training requirements 

during peacetime: combat engineering, geospatial engineering, and general engineering. 

These unique capabilities are brought to bear along 

three to four major lines of engineer support that provide 

warfighters from platoon leader to combatant commanders 

with the ability to successfully execute missions and operations. Engineers assure mobility, enhance protection, and 

enable expeditionary logistics; a new emerging line of engineer support is building capacity. 

There is a debate concerning whether building capacity 

is a line of engineer support or just a role engineers can 

assume based on the mission and their inherent adaptability, core technical training, and historical affinity to step 

up and “Let Us Try.” Since ENFORCE, we have taken the 

approach that elements of building capacity should be a line 

of engineer support. However, there are still major implications that have to be studied to ensure that changes to our 

doctrine, organizations, training, material, leader development, and all the rest are identified, recognized, funded, 

and institutionalized to support the Army. 

The Engineer Regiment’s unique capabilities, combined 

with its lines of engineer support (current and future), define 

the reason we exist. Specifically, its combat, geospatial, and 

general engineering capabilities brought to bear along the 

lines of engineer support ensure that maneuver commanders 

have freedom of action and the ability to operate across the 

full spectrum of conflict, to include peacetime engagement. 

As a Regiment, we must ensure that our capabilities continue 

to meet the demands of both our doctrinal missions and the 

emerging requirements generated during our operational 

employments.

The commandant noted several key tasks that engineers 

must do to ensure that the profession is positioned for success. First and foremost, we must—as a Regiment—breed 

the Army’s best and most adaptable leaders inspired with 

the passion to excel in generating capabilities and employing engineer forces along the lines of engineer support to 

ensure overall mission success. To do this, we must be and 

remain clear on the Regiment’s purpose and role within

the Army. 

Our Regiment As an Army Subprofession

Figure 1
Furthermore, our leaders must be the military engineering subject matter experts. At the same time, as members 

of the greater military profession, engineer leaders must be 

warriors who can walk the walk and talk the talk to ensure 

that engineer units fully support our maneuver brethren. 

Our leaders must be inspired by our purpose as an Engineer 

Regiment and inspire their fellow sappers to serve proudly 

as engineer warriors. 

Additionally, engineer units must be trained and 

equipped to execute their unique missions as engineers and 

be able to adapt to perform other missions that the operational situation demands. Modularization and modernization must continue to ensure that engineers remain ready 

for battle and are continuing to improve their stance to respond to their nation’s call. 

Along the same lines, engineer leaders and planners 

must reach out to other Services, agencies, and nations to 

access the right resources (such as capability, knowledge, 

and capacity) at the right time to accomplish the mission. 

At times, the right organization to execute a particular mission may be an industry partner. Our leaders expand our 

sense of team to include our joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational (JIIM) partners and industry 

experts. 

It is essential that engineer leaders know and understand how to quickly and effectively tap into these JIIM and 

industry resources and use them to enhance mission success. Not only is it imperative that we train and work with 

our partners during predeployment and mission preparation exercises, but engineer leaders must also be trained 

and educated on how to bring our JIIM and industry partners to bear on the challenges of the future.

Commandant’s Vision

– Initial Components

“Engineer warriors leading to serve ground 

forces: A Regiment inspired to answer the commander’s call” 

Regimental Family of Families. The Engineer 

Regiment is a family composed of both military Servicemembers and civilian employees—the Regiment cannot afford to ignore one or the other group. Likewise, the families 

of our sappers and civilians are part of our regimental family. Engineer leaders must be cognizant of the impact their 

decisions have on our families and the impact our families 

have on our sappers’ service. 

World’s Best Military Engineers. The Engineer

Regiment must establish itself as the world’s best military engineers. 

Warriors Always. Sappers must be warriors in their 

own right while being the experts in bringing military engineering capabilities (combat, geospatial, and general engineering) to bear. 

Leading to Serve Ground Forces. Tied back to our 

purpose and the unique calling of the subprofession of military engineers, the Engineer Regiment is a regiment of service. We execute our missions to enable the Army to execute 

its mission. We are leaders who are dedicated to service. 

Figure 2

United States Army Engineer Regiment

“Purpose of our Profession”

14 Engineer May-August 2009
Answering the Commander’s Call. As always, the 

Engineer Regiment has a history of taking on seemingly impossible missions and executing them beyond expectation. 

This standard of excellence sets us apart as an invaluable 

member of the Army team.

The Most Flexible and Adaptive Units. Engineer 

units also have a history of assuming new roles and missions as they arise during combat operations. This is a direct reflection of the trust Army leaders have in the ability 

of engineer units to adapt to changing requirements and 

the flexibility of our leaders. The legacy of flexible and adaptive units must continue. 

Soldiers and Civilians That Inspire Each Other. 

A key characteristic of the Engineer Regiment is the trust 

and confidence its civilian and military leaders have in each 

other. The inspiration gained via the mutual respect of 

skills and competencies generates an enormous amount of 

synergy when solving complex problems and is a key trait 

of the Regiment.

Soldiers Who Dare to Demand “Let Us Try.” From 

junior Soldier to senior leader, the Engineer Regiment is 

known for its continual drive to achieve the impossible. 

When others have tried with limited success, engineers 

have routinely stepped up and achieved success. No matter how difficult, no matter how dangerous, no matter how 

complex and daunting, engineers past and present step into 

the breach and clear the way. 

Setting the Course

– The Professional Debate

I

n the near term, the commandant identified several 

key issues to focus the Engineer Regiment on resolving 

many of the issues it is currently facing. While there 

are many issues, the eight listed in Figure 3 are currently 

at the top of the list and have broad and far-reaching impacts. It is critical that we as a Regiment keep the dialogue 

and discussion open and professional to ensure that we 

identify issues that will impact the Engineer Regiment in 

the future. 

The Engineer School and Regiment as a whole are 

working many of these issues now. The brigade combat 

team engineer battalion, Building Great Engineers, total army analysis processes, engineer coach and career 

advisor, future combat system developments, and JIIM 

and industry partnership developments are all ongoing 

initiatives that will address our issues. 

The commandant is prepared to expand the debate 

and address issues across the Engineer Regiment. Your 

thoughts, ideas, and proposals are essential to this process. 

Keep the cards and letters coming.

Perhaps more important, it is essential that we as 

a collective professional organization embrace our heritage, our purpose, and our reason for being. If we all 

internalize the concept of unselfish service with a heart 

of a sapper, it will be a simple thing to inspire our junior 

sappers to step up and say, “Let Us Try.” Developing and 

promoting this attitude within and across the Engineer 

Regiment can and will make a difference.

Lieutenant Colonel Johnson is the United States Army 

Engineer School Chief of Staff. He commanded the 1-3 Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 

3d Infantry Division, from 20 June 2006 to 17 June 2008.He 

holds a master’s in administration from Central Michigan 

University and a master’s in military arts and sciences from 

the School of Advanced Military Science.

May-August 2009 Engineer 15

Figure 3

Setting the Course: The Professional Debate
16 Engineer May-August 2009

There are several reasons why the United States 

Army should develop its own program for continuing education instead of using one of the many commercial classes available. The Building Great Engineers

campaign of the United States Army Engineer School has 

highlighted the opportunity and value of developing professional credentials, specifically the professional engineer 

(PE) license. Also, more states are adding continuing education requirements in order to sustain licensure. Army officers have special technical skill requirements as well as 

unique difficulties in sustaining professional development 

while deployed. Commercial courses are not developed to 

address specific Army-related issues. Additionally, commercial courses require units to commit funds or effectively 

place undue financial hardship on Soldiers to maintain 

proficiency for the Army’s benefit. This supports the need 

for an Army combat engineer credential that parallels the 

emergency manager credential in the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency.

Today the Army is striving to conduct the full spectrum 

of operations. Engineers provide a tremendous resource for 

certain aspects of stability operations. PEs in particular 

could leverage their technical expertise along with their 

tactical proximity to the operations, in effect becoming a 

force multiplier. To increase the effectiveness of military 

engineers, it would be a wise investment to provide them 

with a professional education program that sustains technical knowledge and provides the most up-to-date training 

necessary to conduct reconstruction in stability operations. 

The Engineer Branch has a dual need to satisfy the combat 

engineer sapper. 

Background

The Engineer School has produced more than 970 

master’s degree students—through University of 

Missouri–Rolla (now Missouri University of Science 

and Technology) programs in engineering management, 

civil engineering, and geological engineering—to build its 

technical competency base in support of the brigade combat 

team (BCT). 

The Army is now, and will be for the foreseeable 

future, formed around the modular BCT. Therefore, decentralized execution of stability operations is inherent in 

today’s operating environment. Brigades need access to 

trained PEs. It may be in the form of an engineer coordinator or an attached field engineering support team, but 

engineering expertise should be an integral part of the BCT 

staff. Field Manual (FM) 3-07, Stability Operations and 

Support Operations, provides a framework for conducting 

stability operations. From that FM, the authors have developed a construct for professional engineering support to 

stability operations. FM 3-07 outlines the following three 

intervention phases of stability operations:

Initial response

Transformation

Fostering sustainability

Initial Response

One of the fundamentals of successful stability operations is to quickly create positive and lasting change in 

the environment. It is from this fundamental that the holy 

grail—security—is most effectively enabled. During the initial response phase, military forces will be focused on providing food, water, shelter, and medical support to the host 

nation. While engineers will have a crucial role in planning 

for, and providing support for, the initial response, it is in 

preparing for the subsequent phases that they have the 

greatest capacity to positively affect stability operations. 

Transformation

The trained PE will be able to facilitate effective and 

rapid transition through the phases. As stability operations 

move from initial response to transformation, a trained 

engineer will be able to rapidly effect local reconstruction. 

This will be achieved by conducting early and effective 

engineer reconnaissance of reconstruction sectors such as 

transportation, energy, communications, hazardous waste 

remediation, water/wastewater, and sanitation. The expertise provided by a PE will facilitate better estimates and 

enable a more efficient distribution of resources during the 

transformation phase. Also, construction management proficiency will enable effective construction management at 

various echelons of the deployed force. This will also create 

a second-order benefit to overworked contract officers, who 

have neither the time nor technical expertise to properly 

oversee the myriad of smaller reconstruction projects in the 

area of operations.

Fostering Sustainability

One of the challenges of conducting effective reconstruction projects is ensuring the sustainability of the projects 

after stability forces depart. Army engineers are unique in 

■

■

■

By Dr. Troy L. Messer, Major Stephen M. Bert, Major Jason A. Evers, and Major Richard J. Gash
May-August 2009 Engineer 17

their combination of cultural understanding, experience 

operating in degraded or Third World environments, technical education, and (with help from the proposed continuing education program) their awareness of state-of-the-art 

engineering solutions. This combination of experience and 

education will enable engineers from BCT to theater level 

to develop solutions that will be sustainable within the host 

nation’s probable educational, economic, and infrastructure 

capabilities.

State Requirements

The authors investigated the continuing education 

requirements for two states. The first was Missouri, 

due to the fact that a large number of engineer officers acquire their PE license there. The second state, Montana, was chosen at random. Both states currently have 

some sort of exemption for licensees serving on full-time 

active military duty. While Missouri offers a permanent 

exemption, Montana only exempts those on temporary active duty (United States Army National Guard and United 

States Army Reserve Soldiers), which seems to indicate that 

active duty personnel are still required to complete continuing education. Both states require 30 professional development hours in a two-year rolling renewal period. An hour 

is defined as “one contact hour of instruction or presentation” which should be relevant to the practice of engineering and can include technical, ethical, or managerial topics. 

Qualifying activities attended in another state are allowed 

by both states. Missouri allows engineer-related satellite 

downlink video and computer software courses to complete 

the requirement. Montana takes a stricter approach, maintaining that “it is not intended that these courses be taken 

in private, such as a videotaped program in one’s home, but 

rather be conducted in a group setting.” However, the Montana guidelines also state that “a qualifying correspondence 

course should require the participant to show evidence of 

achievement and completion, and include a final, graded 

test.” Both states require the maintenance of certificates to 

document individual training sessions and a logbook containing a summary of the entire reporting period.

Educational System

Engineer School Knowledge Network 

The Engineer School Knowledge Network (ESKN) module on the Army Knowledge Online (AKO) site maintained 

by the Engineer School provides an ideal platform for a 

professional continuing education program. The portal is 

available to anyone with AKO login credentials. It can be 

accessed easily from the Engineer School webpage via an 

unsecured Internet connection. Use of ESKN would reduce the technical overhead required for the program by 

leveraging AKO’s existing security, server, and graphical 

user interface capabilities. A content manager with ESKN 

administrator privileges could maintain the technical aspects of the program with little effort. Furthermore, the 

Engineer School’s BlackboardTM suite, which has successfully supported both Regular Army and Reserve Component 

distributed learning (dL), is well-qualified to be a successful 

delivery platform as another course of action. 

The program could include three forms of continuing

education units (CEUs): self-study courses; webinars, or

Internet-based seminars; and webcasts. A requirement common to all three content types would be a certificate of completion that students can print and keep in their records.

Course Topics

Courses studied should be based on doctrine and updated to 

maintain currency with the state of the art in military engineering. 

Some examples of classes could include:

Providing food and water

Finding subsurface water

Analyzing water treatment plants

Constructing wells

Designing irrigation systems

Providing shelter and medical support

Learning structural design

Designing wood structures

Designing masonry structures

Conducting construction reconnaissance

Identifying critical systems nodes

Constructing environmental baseline assessments

Writing a statement of work

Assessing requirements

Estimating material, manpower, and equipment costs

Understanding nongovernmental organization (NGO) and

other government agency (OGA) support to reconstruction

Understanding the United States Agency for International

Development (USAID) organization and capabilities

Learning fundamentals of construction management in order

to oversee contract execution

Communicating news of reconstruction progress—good and

bad—to the public

Understanding available off-the-shelf designs

Learning well-drilling and treatment techniques for surface

water sources

Learning how to use the Red Book/Sand Book

Planning construction education

Assessing host-nation level of training

Defining training requirements

Planning military/NGO/OGA

■

□

□

□

□

■

■

□

□

■

□

□

■

□

□

■

□

■

■

■

■

■

■

□

□

□
Self-Study

A great example of a self-study dL course is CE 300,

Introduction to Engineering Mechanics and Design. The

course is available at <http://www.west-point.org/

academy/ce300/default.htm>. Developed by the head of

the United States Military Academy (USMA) Department 

of Civil and Mechanical Engineering for students studying 

abroad, the course demonstrates the enormous potential of 

web-based self-study. While very effective, the course has 

two disadvantages: Students must have the required texts 

on hand, and it takes a lot of creativity, technical knowledge, and time to create. Less ambitious examples can be 

found in the mandatory online annual training we are all 

familiar with. 

Webinars

In recent years, webinars have emerged within the engineering community as a popular and accepted means of 

attaining CEUs. They typically require students to log in at 

a prearranged time and involve varying degrees of teacherstudent and student-student interaction. Examples of webinars tailored for civil engineering CEUs can be found at 

<www.asce.org/webinar/list>. 

Webcasts

Webcasts are the least interactive—yet easiest to

produce—CEU option. They are simply broadcasts of recorded content that can be accessed over the Internet, such 

as video recordings of classes or presentations.

Summary

The Engineer Regiment needs to establish a formal 

professional continuing education program to ensure 

that it will have competent engineers who can positively impact full spectrum operations. A joint effort between 

the Engineer School, USMA, and the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) could provide the knowledge 

base and direction for the program. The Engineer School defines the course objectives and incorporates lessons learned to 

respond to the Army’s needs. USMA and USACE could provide the technical experts to teach the classes. An online educational system could conveniently track completion of CEUs 

and update officer records, as well as provide officers with 

documentation to meet the state CEU requirements. This 

educational system could be developed within the framework 

of the Army’s existing systems, while adding great benefit to 

the Army and individual pride and confidence among officers with PE licenses. A second-order benefit of this program 

would be a well-developed educational tool to enable all engineer officers to enhance their understanding of engineer solutions to problems encountered in stability operations. The 

Engineer School is ideally suited to act as the lifelong learning portal by offering technical reachback and managing all 

Engineer Captains Career Course graduates as an engineer

community of practice. Finally, the systematic valuation of 

continuing education will undoubtedly lead to the retention 

of the kind of officers that the Engineer Regiment needs in 

order to excel in the future.

Dr. Messer is the technical director of the Department of 

Instruction, Directorate of Training and Leader Development, United States Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri. He retired from the Army in May 2001 as 

a sergeant first class after serving four stateside tours, three 

overseas tours, and one combat tour in Panama during Operation Just Cause. He is an Army Civilian Education System advance graduate.

Major Bert is attending the Army’s Intermediate Level Education (ILE) program en route to assignment as a military 

transition team (MiTT) augmentee with 2d Brigade Combat 

Team, 3d Infantry Division. Previously, he was a platoon 

leader with the 11th Engineer Battalion; company commander with the 588th Engineer Battalion; and assistant professor in the Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 

USMA. He holds a master’s in civil engineering from Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute and State University and is a registered 

PE in Virginia.

Major Evers is attending the Army’s ILE program en route 

to assignment as an MiTT augmentee at 1st Brigade Combat 

Team, 3d Infantry Division. Previously, he was an assistant 

professor in the Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, USMA; Commander, Bravo Company, 16th Engineer 

Battalion; assistant operations and training officer and adjutant, 1st Armored Division Engineer Brigade; and platoon 

leader and other staff positions for 8th Engineer Battalion, 1st 

Cavalry Division. He holds a bachelor’s in civil engineering 

from Gonzaga University and a master’s in civil engineering 

from the University of Washington. He is a registered PE in 

Washington.

Major Gash is a student at the Army Command and General Staff College, en route to assignment as brigade engineer for the 1st Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 2d Infantry 

Division. Previously he was a platoon leader and company 

executive officer in the 70th Engineer Battalion; company 

commander in the 864th Engineer Battalion; and assistant 

professor in the Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, USMA. He holds a bachelor’s in civil engineering 

from USMA, a master’s in geology and geophysics from the 

University of Missouri–Rolla, (now Missouri University of 

Science and Technology) and a master’s in structural engineering from the University of California–Los Angeles. He is 

a registered PE in Ohio and Missouri.

Endnotes

1

Missouri Division of Professional Registration, “Continuing Professional Competency for Professional Engineers 

Licensed in Missouri,” <http://pr.mo.gov/boards/apelsla/

Continuing-Education-PE-PDH-Fact-Sheet.pdf>, accessed 

17 December 2008.

2

Montana Board of Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors, “License Information,” <http://

mt.gov/dli/pel/pdf/ce_guidelines.pdf>, accessed 16 December 2008. 

3

Ibid. 

18 Engineer May-August 2009
May-August 2009 Engineer 19

There is no doubt that the modular Army and engineer 

force has significant operational advantages. Chief 

among them is the ability to tailor the maneuver 

and engineer force to achieve mission success with the 

right capabilities and resources. Modularity also enables 

the management of modular unit personnel and equipment 

readiness within the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) 

process. However, there are some shortfalls in how our 

modular engineer force structure is being employed during

this protracted war. 

Universally Recognized Challenge

The following scenario is a common experience for 

many of our active duty engineers:

In June 2006, a young captain took command of a 

modular engineer company. In September 2006, his battalion 

commander and headquarters deployed to Afghanistan. 

In January 2007, his company deployed to Iraq for what 

became a 15-month tour. During the combat tour, his 

company worked for three separate engineer battalions and 

two different engineer brigades. Upon redeployment, he 

met his new battalion commander, whose predecessor had 

relinquished command upon redeployment in March 2008. 

Within two months, this successful company commander 

relinquished his command to another young captain. A 

few months later, this experienced and high-quality officer 

resigned from the Army. When discussing his decision 

with his battalion commander, he stated that the lack of 

continuity in engineer leadership—related to counseling, 

coaching and inconsistent evaluations due to changing task 

organizations, and the associated staff assistance that a 

battalion headquarters normally provides—loomed large as 

a contributing factor in his decision. While he maintained 

e-mail and occasional telephone contact with his parent 

battalion commander, he still felt isolated and alone—cast 

aside or thrown to the sharks. . . . 

Brigade combat team (BCT) engineers are also experiencing a similar form of isolation and disconnection 

from senior engineer leaders and the Engineer Regiment. 

Light and heavy BCT engineer experiences are different, 

but with a few exceptions neither has a direct dedicated 

command relationship with a senior engineer leader. Due to 

their placement in combined arms battalions (CABs), many 

of our heavy BCT engineer companies have also become 

maneuver-centric in terms of capability and employment. 

Even when the brigade special troops battalion (BSTB) 

commander is an engineer and the engineer company is 

assigned to the BSTB, the situation isn’t significantly 

improved. The BSTB commander must balance the need 

to treat all the BSTB companies and Soldiers equally to 

avoid the perception of favoritism within his unit. The 

rift that could be created by focusing heavily on engineer 

professional development would degrade team building 

within the BSTB.

The dislocation from senior engineer leader engagement 

isn’t limited to engineers assigned to modular units. Many 

junior engineers are assigned to staffs in nonengineer units 

across the Army—from training support units to CABs to 

functional and maneuver enhancement brigades (MEBs). 

Many lack a training readiness authority (TRA), coaching or 

career-advising relationship with a senior engineer leader, 

or inclusion in engineer-related professional development opportunities. 

Building Great Engineers

Mentorship Working Group Update

By Lieutenant Colonel Scott C. Johnson
20 Engineer May-August 2009

These same situations are also occurring within our 

United States Army Reserve and United States Army 

National Guard engineer force structure. BCT engineer 

companies are separated from traditional regimentalaffiliated command and control, technical expertise, and 

professional development. Modular Reserve Component 

engineer units are deployed without regard to TRA and 

state relationships, and many engineers working on staffs 

do not have a direct relationship with an engineer unit with 

TRA authority. 

During the ENFORCE conference in April 2009, senior 

engineer leaders met to develop a course of action to 

address this growing challenge. Organized by Colonel Andy 

Phillips (Great Britain [GBR]), and facilitated by Brigadier 

General John Peabody and Colonel (P) “Rock” Donahue, 

the Building Great Engineers Mentorship Working Group 

(MWG) developed a concept to provide engineer-specific 

career advice and coaching within the Engineer Regiment 

that enhances and complements the current modular

TRA relationships.

Engineer Coach and Career Advisor 

Concept

The engineer coach and career advisor (ECCA) is a 

geographically based senior engineer leader who 

is invested and entrusted with the responsibility 

of providing a forum for engineer-specific professional 

development, technical advice and support, and nurturing 

and growing Engineer Regiment esprit de corps. The ECCA 

relationship does not directly equate with TRA or a command 

or support relationship; however, leaders of engineer units 

have inherent ECCA responsibilities for units under

their command. 

For example, the engineer brigade commanders at 

Fort Hood, Texas, and in Germany would have ECCA 

responsibilities for all units for which they have direct TRA 

responsibility, whether they were colocated or assigned to 

another installation or country. Similarly, the engineer 

battalion commanders at Fort Stewart, Georgia, or in 

Schweinfurt, Germany, would have ECCA responsibilities 

for the units over which they exercise TRA responsibilities. 

Under the ECCA concept, the aforementioned Fort Hoodbased brigade commander—once designated as the ECCA 

for Fort Hood—would be charged with executing ECCA 

responsibilities for all engineers assigned to Fort Hood, 

regardless of established TRA relationships. 

The Engineer Branch proponent will be responsible for 

designating geographically based ECCAs within our 

Regular Army, Reserve, and National Guard force structure 

and charging them with promoting engineer-specific 

professional development opportunities, providing engineer 

technical advice and support, and nurturing and growing 

Engineer Regiment esprit de corps for all engineer units 

and personnel within their designated sphere of influence. 

The ECCA’s responsibilities are designed to complement the 

direct TRA of physically and geographically separate units. 

Additionally, the ECCA’s responsibilities are designed to be 

transferred to a forward-deployed senior engineer leader,

or to another local senior engineer leader if the primary 

ECCA is deployed forward. From engineer brigade to 

engineer staff to engineer team or detachment, all engineer 

leaders should know who their primary ECCA is, whether 

deployed or at a permanent duty station.

ECCA Responsibilities 

The following ECCA responsibilities will be published 

in Department of the Army Pamphlet (DA PAM)

600-3, Officer Professional Development and Career 

Management: 

Provide engineer-specific coaching and career advice 

to junior engineer leaders and/or engineer technical

advice and support. For non-TRA units and engineer personnel, this is provided when sought or

requested. 

Plan, coordinate, and provide for engineer-specific

professional development opportunities for all engineers within the ECCA geographic area of

responsibility.

Promote Engineer Regiment pride, professionalism,

and overall esprit de corps.

Ensure continuity of ECCA effort and services

through the designation of alternate ECCAs in the

event the primary ECCA is unavailable due to geographic separation resulting from deployments.

ECCA Implementation

Several additional recommendations were developed 

by the Building Great Engineers MWG, and in subsequent discussions, that support the implementation 

of the ECCA program and improve its goals.

Align, deploy, and employ modular companies and

battalions as units whenever possible. Minimize the 

practice of deploying modular companies independently from their TRA battalion headquarters. 

Our United States Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) and Army Assistant Chiefs of Staff, Operations/

Plans/Information Engagement (G3/5/7) engineers

who work sourcing issues are our implementing

agents. Expect this initiative to occur over time as

unit dwell times increase.

Assign key and developmental majors to the BCT

engineer positions—and, when possible, assign former

battalion commanders to division engineer positions—

until an organizational change is implemented that

addresses the engineer command and control challenges

within the infantry, heavy, and Stryker BCTs. (The

brigade engineer battalion force design update (FDU)

concept is one of the proposed solutions.) Once validated

and approved, the Engineer Branch, in coordination

with the United States Army Engineer School

commandant, is the lead in implementing this

initiative. Available population, dwell time, and

competing requirements for these high-demand officers

will have an impact on how this initiative will

move forward.

■

■

■

■

■

■
Develop an implementation plan to reestablish and

promote Army Engineer Association (AEA) chapters

across the Army to assist and complement the ECCA 

engineer professional development and esprit de 

corps missions. This initiative could include reaching

out to Engineer Regiment retirees and extended

Servicemember families to bolster Engineer Regiment

identity—expand the base. 

Empower United States Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) division and district leaders, with support 

from both AEA and the Society of American Military 

Engineers (SAME), with ECCA-like responsibilities

to engage the engineers of the future currently in

high school and college across the nation.

The Road Ahead

The first two recommendations will not solve the issues 

facing the Engineer Regiment. They will, however, 

position our units and leaders for greater success. 

Senior engineer leaders embracing and implementing the 

full ECCA program—coaching and providing career advice, 

providing engineer-specific professional development and 

technical assistance, and promoting Engineer Regiment esprit 

de corps supported by the third recommendation—will have a 

huge impact over time. Though institutionalizing the ECCA 

program within DA PAM 600-3 may take a year or more 

due to the update cycle, we will issue individual charters 

■

■

May-August 2009 Engineer 21

within a few months. Expect ECCA concept implementation 

to start with our active duty engineers, then increase 

to comprise the Reserve Components. Eventually, this 

program will expand to include our USACE districts and 

enable the Engineer Regiment to reach out to engineers 

assigned to the Regular Army and Reserve Components, 

recruiting, Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC), and 

joint assignments. 

Of course, there is nothing to stop engineer commanders 

from taking steps now to position themselves for execution 

within their units or outside their TRA sphere of influence. 

Socializing this concept with leaders outside the engineer 

command and control structure (for example, TRA) is deemed 

critical—ECCA responsibilities do not equate with TRA of 

nonaligned engineers. What is the strategic message? The 

ECCA concept will benefit the overall Engineer Regiment, 

to include the individual technical competence of nonTRA-aligned engineers, and engineer esprit de corps. When 

implemented by dedicated professional engineer leaders, 

the Regiment will take a giant step forward.

Lieutenant Colonel Johnson is the United States Army 

Engineer School Chief of Staff. He commanded the 1-3 

Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat 

Team, 3d Infantry Division, from 20 June 2006 to 17 June 

2008. He holds a master’s in administration from Central 

Michigan University and a master’s in military arts and 

sciences from the School of Advanced Military Science.

ENFORCE 2009 

featured the 

inaugural Engineer Warrant Officer 

of the Year award. The 

United States Army 

Reserve winner was 

Chief Warrant Officer 

Three (CW3) Nathan 

P.D. Harvel, 321st Engineer Detachment, 

844th Engineer Battalion, Bethlehem, 

Georgia. The Chief of 

Engineers, Lieutenant General Robert 

L. Van Antwerp, presented CW3 Harvel 

his award during the 

Engineer Ball (shown 

above with Lieutenant Colonel Adam S. Roth, Commander, 844th Engineer Battalion). The Active Army winner was Warrant 

Officer One (WO1) Anthony R. Jellison, Headquarters 

Support Company,

46th Engineer Battalion. WO1 Jellison is 

currently deployed and 

will receive his award 

when he returns to 

home station. Congratulations to both of these 

officers for a job VERY 

well done! 

Think you have the 

“stuff” to be the next 

Engineer Warrant Officer of the Year? Check 

out Fort Leonard Wood 

Pamphlet 672-1, The 

Itschner, the Outstanding Engineer Platoon 

Leader, the Outstanding Engineer Warrant 

Officer, and the Van Autreve Awards and the Sturgis Medal, for program requirements at <http://www.wood.army.

mil/doimspt/phamphlets.htm>. 

Warrant Officer of the Year Award
22 Engineer May-August 2009

The ENFORCE Council of Colonels met on the afternoon of 21 April 2009. The meeting had been a standard event on the ENFORCE template for 

many years, but as the ENFORCE venue changed over 

the past few years, the Council of Colonels had fallen 

off the agenda. This year’s event was highly successful, and attendees agreed that it needs to remain on the 

schedule.

One significant change to the Council of Colonels this 

year was that attendance was by invitation only. Previously, the council was open to the Regiment at large and 

drew a huge crowd. Limiting the members this year was 

done to keep the Council at a manageable size of about 60 

people in order to focus the discussion. The primary invitees were current brigade commanders; colonel-level district commanders; theater engineer command chiefs of staff 

and deputy chiefs of staff for plans and operations; combatant command engineers; engineers on the United States 

Army and joint staffs; division engineers; selected program 

managers from the United States Army Acquisition Corps 

community; and our doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities 

(DOTMLPF) domain chiefs from the United States Army 

Engineer School and United States Army Maneuver

Support Center.

The Council of Colonels received briefings and discussed 

a wide range of topics. Key agenda events included a follow-on discussion from the ENFORCE Pentagon Panel plenary session, led by Mr. William E. Clarkson and Colonel 

James R. Rowan (Retired), which focused mainly on the brigade engineer battalion proposal; an update from Iraq by 

Colonel Scott F. “Rock” Donahue; an organizational update 

by Lieutenant Colonel Stephen A. Danner; and an update 

from the United States Army Forces Command engineer, 

Colonel Charles King (Retired), on some of the key training and sourcing challenges that we are facing to support 

current operations. The highlight of the Council of Colonels 

was the discussion with the new Engineer School commandant, Brigadier General Bryan G. Watson, who presented 

his draft vision and framework for the Regiment (see article 

on page 12). He used the collective wisdom of the Council 

of Colonels to refine the document and make final adjustments before sharing it with the rest of the Regiment later 

in the week. The ENFORCE Council of Colonels slides are 

posted to the Engineer School Knowledge Network site at 

<https://www.us.army.mil/suite/portal/index.jsp>.

Engineer School officials are considering making the 

Council of Colonels a twice-a-year event and are planning 

a 1- or 2-day Council of Colonels tentatively scheduled for 

3-4 November 2009. For announcements with dates and 

other details, check the Engineer School 

website at <http://www.wood.army.

mil/wood_cms/usaes.shtml> later this 

summer.

Colonel Rowan (Retired) is the Deputy Assistant Commandant, United 

States Army Engineer School. Previously, he served as the Assistant Technical 

Director for Military Engineering at the 

United States Army Engineer Research 

and Development Center (ERDC), 

Vicksburg, Mississippi. Other key duty 

positions include Commander, ERDC; 

Commander, 1st Engineer Brigade; 

Commander, 54th Engineer Battalion; 

and Commander, 16th Engineer Battalion. He has served in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom both as a military officer and 

a civilian.

By Colonel James R. Rowan (Retired)

ENFORCE Council of Colonels

Council of Colonels at ENFORCE 2009
May-August 2009 Engineer 23

Warm temperatures and sunny skies accompanied 

this year’s Best Sapper Competition at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, framing the Engineer 

Regiment’s most spectacular yearly 

event. The Sapper Leader Course 

cadre—augmented by a cast of 

hundreds of officers, noncommissioned officers (NCOs), 

Soldiers, and civilians—

engineered a flawless contest of mental and physical 

strength that left competitors impressed with

its rich training quality and professional execution. 

Teams entered the competition with victory as their

foremost goal, but there is a particular group of lieutenants who may find that the value of the competition extends further than just standing on the 

winner’s podium. 

The demands of current deployment cycles leave new engineer lieutenants with one of two ways to get experience

as a platoon leader: either during predeployment 

training or while deployed to Iraq

or Afghanistan. While both experiences offer plenty of challenges and learning opportunities, platoon leader time in combat often does not expose the 

young officers to the wide variety

of thorough, engineer-specific 

training that units conduct when ramping up

 for a deployment. For example, a new lieutenant fresh out of 

the Engineer Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC) II who 

meets his or her unit downrange and steps into a platoon 

probably will not have attended a combat lifesaver 

course or supervised a demolitions range before leading 

the platoon. Besides the introductory training received

By First Lieutenant Christopher D. Blackburn

A sapper team sprints to the finish line of the obstacle course in the 2009 Best Sapper Competition.
24 Engineer May-August 2009

during each phase of BOLC, platoon leader time is when 

a young officer is meant to benefit from the mentorship of 

NCOs and become proficient in engineer skills that he or 

she will grow to expect of all sappers. Without these training opportunities, a lieutenant in combat may be at a loss 

when the platoon sergeant suggests using a water impulse 

charge to breach a steel door or the interpreter asks how to 

administer an intravenous injection.

As one of those new lieutenants, I found that training 

for the competition provided the most comprehensive approach to make up for lost time in a garrison environment. 

Any participant who takes the competition seriously will 

naturally master basic combat engineer skills, because 

not doing so will certainly doom a team’s competitiveness 

against the field. Regardless of the technique used to catch 

up, lieutenants must not replace their foundation of basic 

engineer knowledge with wartime experiences. Being a 

platoon leader in combat is undeniably beneficial and often

the highlight of an officer’s career. But what about time 

spent as a company commander in a different conflict—

perhaps Iraq instead of Afghanistan—where the tactics, 

techniques, and procedures used as a platoon leader may 

be inappropriate? Without a strong foundation of basic engineer knowledge and an understanding of the capabilities 

that Soldiers and NCOs bring to the fight, a commander 

will struggle to appropriately direct combat power

to accomplish the mission. It is up to the individual

leader to conduct a self-assessment, identify deficiencies in 

knowledge or skills, and implement a system to ensure that 

these gaps are filled.

During no other 52-hour period in a Soldier’s

career will he or she be subjected to more rigorous, realistic, battle-focused training than during the Best 

Sapper Competition. While lieutenants typically plan 

rather than execute training events at squad level and

below, the competition offers lieutenants a rare chance 

to participate for “free”—free of range control, risk assessment, ammunition draw, transportation, and every 

other administrative duty required to conduct training in garrison. The resourcing headache is gracefully 

accepted by the Sapper Leader Course cadre, giving

participants an opportunity to appreciate the fruitful 

A team from the 66th 

Engineer Company 

executes the weapons assembly station 

during the “Sapper 

Stakes” phase of the 

2009 Best Sapper 

Competition.

A sapper heads for the finish line after the helocast.
training and establishing a standard to emulate when planning training within their own units. 

Cadets at the United States Military Academy commit 

to memory General Douglas MacArthur’s famed opinion of 

athletic competition in the Army: “Upon the fields of friendly strife are sown the seeds, that upon other fields, on other 

days, will bear the fruits of victory.” General MacArthur, 

then superintendent at West Point, was speaking of officer 

athletes attending the Academy, but his message certainly 

applies elsewhere. Nonstop physical and mental intensity 

make the Best Sapper Competition the epitome of friendly 

strife. Given the reliance lieutenants must place on NCOs to 

succeed as platoon leaders, the strengthening of the officerNCO sapper buddy team forms the foundation for victory on 

other fields. Officer-NCO teams took first and second place 

in this year’s competition, as well as the top spots in 2006 

and 2007. Most lieutenants, especially platoon leaders, will 

never again in their careers be more closely surrounded by 

the experience and counsel of NCOs. This precious resource 

should be tapped, not just for the sake of building a competitive team but because the bond created during the competition is everlasting and represents the trademark of success throughout our Army’s history. Personally speaking, 

it wasn’t asking my sapper buddy how to throw a grapnel 

hook, but realizing how familiar he was with the tactical 

details of its employment, that was most memorable. There 

are many ways to learn in the Army—field manuals, college courses, officer professional development classes, for 

instance—but nothing tops the decades of experience and 

the distinctive, plain-spoken message of a prideful NCO. 

This year’s Best Sapper Competition was the best yet. 

An engineer lieutenant need not look far for motivation to 

prepare and compete. The competition has stiffened over 

the years, but not unexpectedly, considering the event’s 

training value and the prestige of being named the Army’s 

Best Sapper. The rewards for winning are plentiful: Remington shotguns, a Bronze Order of the de Fleury Medal, a 

rucksack full of gear, an Army Commendation Medal, and 

many other keepsakes. However, a lieutenant privileged 

enough to partner with the type of top-notch NCO we expect 

to shoulder the mission of the Engineer Regiment may have 

a different perspective on winning. Like past Best Sapper champions, you may be fortunate enough to combine 

invaluable training and NCO partnership with impressive accolades. 

First Lieutenant Blackburn is a platoon leader with the 

66th Engineer Company, 2d Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 

25th Infantry Division, and served as a platoon leader and 

task force engineer during the company’s deployment to Iraq 

from December 2007 to February 2009. He is a graduate of 

Ranger School and holds a bachelor’s in civil engineering 

from the United States Military Academy.

Note: First Lieutenant Blackburn and his sapper buddy, 

Staff Sergeant Moises Ramirez, 66th Engineer Company 

from Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, finished among the top 

10 in the 2009 Best Sapper Competition. First Lieutenant 

Blackburn also earned the Engineer Regiment’s Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader Award in 2008.

Sappers complete the helocast/poncho raft and swim event during the 2009 Best Sapper

Competition.

May-August 2009 Engineer 25
26 Engineer May-August 2009

Regimental Awards

Photo by Mike Curtis

Each year we recognize the best engineer company, 

lieutenant, warrant officer, noncommissioned 

officer, and enlisted Soldier—in each of the 

components—for outstanding contributions and service 

to our Regiment and Army. Every engineer unit in the 

Regiment can submit the name and achievements of its 

best of the best to compete in these distinguished award 

competitions. Only the finest engineer companies and 

Soldiers are selected as recipients of these awards. The 

Soldiers will carry throughout their careers the distinction 

and recognition of being the Engineer Branch’s best and 

brightest Soldiers and leaders. Following are the results 

of the 2008 selection boards for the Itschner, Outstanding 

Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly), and Outstanding 

Engineer Warrant Officer Awards, the Sturgis Medal, and 

the Van Autreve Award:

Active Army

Itschner Award: United States Army Pacific (USARPAC) 

nominee, 66th Engineer Company, 2d Stryker Brigade 

Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, 

Hawaii.

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Award:

USARPAC nominee, First Lieutenant Christopher 

Blackburn, 66th Engineer Company, 2d Stryker Brigade 

Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, 

Hawaii.

Outstanding Engineer Warrant Officer Award: United 

States Forces Command (FORSCOM) nominee, Warrant 

Officer One Anthony R. Jellison, Headquarters Support 

Company, 46th Engineer Battalion, Fort Polk, Louisiana.

Sturgis Medal: United States Army Europe (USAREUR) 

nominee, Sergeant First Class (P) Marcus McClain, Alpha 

Company, 173d Special Troops Battalion, 173d Airborne 

Brigade Combat Team, Bamberg, Germany.

Van Autreve Award: FORSCOM nominee, Specialist 

Wesley Silver, 58th Engineer Company, 326th Engineer 

Battalion, Fort Irwin, California.

United States Army Reserve

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 Autreve Award: Specialist Ricky L. Weissend, 

375th Engineer Company, 844th Engineer Battalion, Eva, 

Alabama.

Army National Guard

Itschner Award: Charlie Company, 201st Engineer 

Battalion, Kentucky Army National Guard, Cynthiana, 

Kentucky.

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Award: 

First Lieutenant Joseph W. Sloan, Charlie Company, 201st 

Engineer Battalion, Kentucky Army National Guard, 

Cynthiana, Kentucky.

Outstanding Engineer Warrant Officer Award: No 

nomination.

Sturgis Medal: Staff Sergeant Mark Welker, HHC, 

1140th Engineer Battalion, Missouri Army National Guard, 

Cape Girardeau, Missouri.

Van Autreve Award: Specialist Daniel L. Macklin, 

220th Engineer Company, Missouri Army National Guard, 

Festus, Missouri.

All of the nominees represented their major commands 

with the highest professionalism and dedication to the 

Engineer Corps’s vision and deserve our highest praise. 

The award recipients were recognized at ENFORCE 2009 

at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.
May-August 2009 Engineer 27

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are often referred 

to as “company commanders’ wars.” Although 

some of these commanders are prepared for the 

challenges they will face in combat, others are not. We must 

have trained, capable engineer leaders in these positions to 

ensure our success. The Engineer Branch functions across 

the spectrum of Army operations, and as such we represent 

our branch to senior maneuver officers. An engineer’s ability 

to analyze tactical problems and identify solutions can be 

a great asset to a brigade combat team (BCT) or battalion 

staff. A solid foundation in doctrine and tactics will lead to 

the employment of our young sappers to their full potential. 

So how do we best train and prepare company grade 

officers for their assigned duties and prepare them to 

interact with the maneuver leaders to provide them optimal 

engineer support? 

Challenges

Young lieutenants and captains today face a number of 

challenges when arriving at their first company. For 

example, they probably will not get a fully-manned 

platoon or company or a property book with correct shortage 

annexes. Many of their subordinate leaders will have less 

than a month or two in their current grade or duty position. 

Within the first 90 days, some of those subordinate leaders 

will leave the Army or change stations. Critically, most of 

their subordinate leaders will be behind the normal timeline 

for the Noncommissioned Officer Education System, whether 

for the Warrior Leader Course, Basic Noncommissioned 

Officer Course, or Advanced Noncommissioned Officer 

Course. The company commander may have served in a 

construction battalion or held a job in the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers before being assigned to a heavy 

BCT and will face challenges understanding how to establish 

a training plan in preparation for combat. The United States 

Army’s current operational tempo challenges leaders daily, 

and they find themselves struggling with time and resource 

management. Strategies to solve these problems come from 

cooperative interactions between leaders and subordinates 

and a calculated professional development plan on the part 

of raters and senior raters. 

Effective Leadership

Some leaders are blessed with the charisma required to 

lead and influence sappers, while others require the 

support of their duty titles to accomplish these tasks. 

Observe leaders you serve with, adopt their positive traits, 

and try them within your own organizations. Encourage 

subordinate leaders to do the same. One of the reasons 

General of the Army George C. Marshall was a successful 

organizer and tactician was that he continuously applied 

different solutions to problems in a training environment 

By Captain Robert R. Phillipson
28 Engineer May-August 2009

and optimized how the task was accomplished. His leaders 

gave him the flexibility to try new solutions to problems 

and learn from the results he achieved. His successes in 

expanding his capabilities were only achieved through time 

and a supportive chain of command. The larger share of 

coaching time should be devoted to the technical and tactical 

aspects of the profession of arms. Effective leadership results 

when subordinates have institutional knowledge and are 

unencumbered by the tactical and administrative aspects of 

their assigned positions. Also, since subordinates represent 

their organization when attached to maneuver units, it is 

critical that they understand how they are integrated into 

maneuver planning and execution. 

“Officers must know how to think clearly about problems 

of the battlefield without being entangled with elaborate 

techniques of leadership to be effective.”1

—General of the Army George C. Marshall

Commanders are responsible for training themselves 

and their subordinates in the challenging environment 

of military service. At the National Training Center, Fort 

Irwin, California, we see officers who are experienced 

combat veterans but cannot write a tactical order because 

many units use an abbreviated concept of operations format 

in combat. There are also those who try to lead their units 

by themselves because they do not feel they have the time to 

train subordinates on administrative skills. These officers 

are not as successful as those who have built a team. All 

leaders must continuously reflect on their competence in 

the art and science aspects of their profession, identifying 

their strengths and weaknesses and continuing their extended education. 

“Developing leaders is a priority mission in command 

and organizations.”2 

—Field Manual (FM) 7-21.13, The Soldiers Guide 

Reception and Integration

During the first interaction with new subordinate 

leaders, it is critical to establish required 

standards and performance measures. These 

leaders operate and integrate new information at different 

levels. One of the strengths of the military profession 

is that subordinate leaders are not identical—they are 

individuals. The initial counseling gives them very specific 

guidance, the commander’s expectations of them, and what 

they should expect from the commander. This may sound 

basic but, in eight years of commissioned service, only one 

rater gave me a complete initial counseling. This, of all 

counseling, is probably the most critical. To help organize 

that first counseling session, the following can serve as primary categories:

Leadership

“An officer is responsible for everything his organization 

does or fails to do.” That statement sets the tone a young 

leader needs to focus his or her perspective. Articulate the 

left and right limits (probably very narrow at first), and 

make it plain that development will bring greater latitude. 

Remind him or her of the obligation to respectfully provide 

input to decisions and encourage discussion with you. How 

many commanders have an “open door” whose threshold no 

one dares to cross? 

“If as an officer one does not tell blunt truths or create an 

environment where candor is encouraged, then [he has done 

himself] and the institution a disservice.”3

–Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates

Professional Ethics

A single unethical decision by a leader can do great 

damage to a unit and have strategic impact. The scandal at 

Abu Ghraib is a reminder that ethical failure by a small group 

can have disastrous consequences. Spend time talking with 

subordinates about the relationship between officers and 

noncommissioned officers (NCOs). Explain to young officers 

the importance of that cooperative relationship and how to 

approach the NCO who has a decade or more of military 

experience. The relationship between a platoon leader and 

platoon sergeant is different from the relationship between 

a commander and a first sergeant. Adjusting perspective 

does not always come naturally. The first meeting between 

a platoon leader and his platoon sergeant is not covered 

in any class during the Basic Officer Leadership Course. 

Raters and senior raters have a professional obligation 

to guide their subordinates to successfully navigate their 

first meeting with their NCOs. They should be armed with 

accurate assessments of the strengths and limitations of 

their future NCO partners. 

Professional Development

Engineer officers’ career paths can be quite diverse 

and offer little opportunity to specialize in any one field. 

An engineer may spend time as a lieutenant, operating 

a quarry as part of an engineer battalion, and time as a 

captain, rated by infantry officers while assigned to an 

infantry unit. Engineer officers need mentorship by field 

grade officers. Institutional course success is not always 

an indicator of performance or expertise. The first tactical 

order that I wrote as an infantry battalion planner was 

returned by my battalion commander with the comment, 

“This is an F.” He then took the time to walk me through his 

“An engineer’s ability to 

analyze tactical problems 

and identify solutions 

can be a great asset to a 

brigade combat team or 

battalion staff.”
interpretation of a tactical order, and I began to realize the 

necessity of understanding how the commander visualizes 

the battlefield and processes information. For the next three 

years, with the help of my seniors, I learned as much as I 

could. The learning curve was steep and unforgiving. 

Eight-Step Training Model. When first assessing a new 

officer, questions about doctrine and tactics should be posed 

to determine the officer’s level of institutional knowledge. 

Then the officer should be assigned tasks that support 

his or her education and have an applicable outcome. The 

eight-step training model is a useful template; having a 

subordinate design ranges and produce the orders required 

to execute them is an effective training exercise. Not only 

does it require the officer to understand how to reserve the 

land, request the ammunition, arrange transportation, and 

organize support architecture, but it also requires research 

in Department of the Army Pamphlet 385-63, Range Safety, 

and understanding surface danger zones. Producing directfire control measures furthers understanding of the effects 

of weapon systems. Then the officer must work with NCOs 

to develop a comprehensive training plan—supported by 

doctrine—to meet the standards for executing a live-fire 

exercise. At the end of a single range design exercise, a 

baseline of knowledge is established or reinforced and the 

new officer knows the required standards for successful 

mission accomplishment. Young leaders may someday 

have an assignment independent of a company or battalion

in combat. 

“It took a long time to make senior officers realize 

that if they did not make junior officers go through the 

process in which they alone must make decisions or make 

recommendations on which decisions must be based, they 

hadn’t done much.”4

—General of the Army George C. Marshall

Doctrine. This is the foundation for all Army operations, 

and engineers will be asked to perform a variety of 

missions to the highest standards. An understanding of 

basic doctrine and how to apply the fundamentals to the 

decisionmaking process is essential. Develop a training 

plan in your subordinates’ counseling to reinforce the troopleading procedures. If a young leader is able to organize 

his thoughts within this system, it will enable effective 

time management. Also, understanding how to effectively 

use doctrinal terms is imperative. Subordinates should 

understand the need to become well versed in FM 1-02, 

Operational Terms and Graphics, and should not be allowed 

to speak in nondoctrinal terms. Speaking the language is a 

hallmark of credibility in the engineer profession. 

History and Professional Writing. These have critical 

applications in professional development. The Army 

has a broad professional reading list that is challenging 

in its size and scope. Many of the books are mainstream 

and written before 1990. With current time limitations, 

topics worth studying should be specified. Ways to aid in 

identifying applicable texts are to seek the advice of senior 

leaders or to browse university courses about expected 

deployment locations and to scan their required reading 

lists. A timeline and structure for professional discussions 

should be established. Developing creative solutions to 

tactical problems requires that leaders have not only a solid 

base in doctrine but also in military history and professional writing. 

Personal Development. It is critical for new leaders in our 

profession to look the part. Physical fitness is imperative. The 

first time a young officer is challenged by his subordinates 

is often at physical training when the young sappers try 

to determine the new leader’s physical strengths and 

weaknesses. Poor performance there can be a challenge to 

the leader’s credibility in other areas. Establishing goals 

and training plans for the new leader in terms of fitness 

should be part of initial counseling. In the same session, new 

leaders should be reminded that not looking the part can 

undermine professional credibility. Personal ethics must 

be part of this briefing as well, since an officer’s personal 

life is always subject to scrutiny. Compromising ethical 

standards can result in a loss of professional credibility

and effectiveness.

Basic Skills and Development. Counseling new 

officers quarterly is less than optimal, especially for 

junior lieutenants, who need to be counseled monthly. 

Counseling does not always have to be formal. Taking a 

knee with subordinates during a field training exercise 

is just as effective. Pick two or three traits to emphasize 

and concentrate on them. It is better to serve with a young 

officer who is an expert at a few things rather than one who 

is mediocre at many.

At the National Training Center, we see rotational 

companies ten times a year. Our team covers the full 

spectrum of engineer operations—from sapper companies to 

vertical construction companies. Fundamental skills often 

absent in junior officers are the ability to produce written 

orders to convey intent, understand how to supervise their 

platoon, and anticipate requirements. On the first point, 

without a company-level order, there is little chance that 

the platoon leader will generate his own. Commanders 

should be prepared to issue orders according to FM

5-0, Army Planning and Orders Production, from the first 

warning order to the final operations order. Enforcing this 

format will enable junior leaders to conduct troop-leading 

procedures with greater effectiveness and provide them a 

logical format to aid in parallel planning. The second point 

can be a sensitive topic. Young lieutenants and captains 

are also inexperienced leading in the positions they are 

assigned. There is often trepidation on their part to make 

decisions or give direction for fear of not knowing how to do 

it. Finally, young officers should be coached to anticipate 

requirements. This comes from a few months of working 

together, getting to know each other professionally, and 

understanding the commander’s intent for small-unit 

operations in the operational environment. 

Advanced Development and Sustainment. Once the 

initial training and coaching of subordinates is complete, 

commanders then have the obligation to prepare them 

May-August 2009 Engineer 29
for their next duty position. Many lieutenants and junior 

captains are commanding companies without the benefit 

of having attended the Engineer Captains Career Course.

When I attended that course, I thought the amount of time 

spent on staff operations was excessive—until I served 

on a battalion staff. Young leaders deserve to prove they 

can perform their duties and are prepared for future staff 

positions. Always holding subordinates to the highest 

standards ensures that they present themselves and the 

Engineer Branch in the best possible light. 

Sustainment can simply be expressed as mentorship. 

This relationship can be established and maintained for 

many years to come. The military mentor relationship 

starts with initial counseling and continues throughout the 

careers of both officers. 

Develop a Plan

I

neffective time management should not be allowed to 

drive our subordinate leader development plans. It is 

imperative to take the time to identify the strengths 

and weaknesses of subordinates, then develop a deliberate 

plan of action to prepare them for their path ahead. This is 

a commander’s professional obligation, and young sappers 

deserve the best we can provide.

May-August 2009

Captain Phillipson is Tarantula 15, Light Task Force 

Engineer Trainer (Airborne), Operations Group, National 

Training Center, Fort Irwin, California. Previous assignments include platoon leader and executive officer with 

the 577th Engineer Battalion; assistant plans and operations 

(S-3) officer, S-3 and task force engineer, and Commander, 

Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Battalion, 

7th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Heavy Brigade Combat Team 

(HBCT), 1st Cavalry Division; and Commander, Eagle 

Company, 4th Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 4th HBCT, 

1st Armored Division. He holds an associate’s degree from 

the New Mexico Military Academy, Roswell, and a bachelor’s 

from the University of New Mexico at Albuquerque.

Endnotes

1

Forrest C. Pogue, George C. Marshall: Education of a 

General, 1880-1939, Viking Press, New York, New York, 

p. 250.

2

Field Manual 7-21.13, The Soldier’s Guide, 15 October 

2003.

3

Robert Gates, “Reflections on Leadership,” Parameters: 

US Army War College Quarterly, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 

No. 2, Summer 2008, p. 11. 

4

Pogue, p. 100.

30 Engineer

Engineer is a professional-development bulletin designed 

to provide a forum for exchanging information and ideas 

within the Army engineer community. We include articles by 

and about officers, enlisted Soldiers, warrant officers, Department of the Army civilian employees, and others. Writers may discuss training, current operations and exercises, 

doctrine, equipment, history, personal viewpoints, or other 

areas of general interest to engineers. Articles may share 

good ideas and lessons learned or explore better ways of 

doing things.

Articles should be concise, straightforward, and in the active voice. If they contain attributable information or quotations 

not referenced in the text, provide appropriate endnotes. Text 

length should not exceed 2,000 words (about eight doublespaced pages). Shorter after-action-type articles and reviews 

of books on engineer topics are also welcome.

Include photos (with captions) and/or line diagrams that 

illustrate information in the article. Please do not include illustrations or photos in the text; instead, send each of them 

as a separate file. Do not embed photos in PowerPoint®. If 

illustrations are in PowerPoint, avoid excessive use of color 

and shading. Save digital images at a resolution no lower 

than 200 dpi. Images copied from a website must be accompanied by copyright permission.

Provide a short paragraph that summarizes the content 

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

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

assignments, experience, and education; your mailing address; and a fax number and commercial daytime telephone

number.

Articles submitted to Engineer must be accompanied by a 

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

prior to publication. All information contained in the article must 

be unclassified, nonsensitive, and releasable to the public. 

Engineer is distributed to military units worldwide and is also 

available for sale by the Government Printing Office. As such, 

it is readily accessible to non-government or foreign individuals 

and organizations.

We cannot guarantee that we will publish all submitted articles. They are accepted for publication only after thorough 

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

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

changes in your e-mail address and telephone number. All articles accepted for publication are subject to grammatical and 

structural changes as well as editing for style.

Send submissions by e-mail to <leon.engineer@conus.

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

along with a double-spaced copy of the manuscript, to: Managing Editor, Engineer Professional Bulletin, 464 MANSCEN 

Loop, Suite 2661, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8926.

Note: Please indicate if your manuscript is being considered for publication elsewhere. Due to the limited space per 

issue, we usually do not print articles that have been accepted 

for publication by other Army professional bulletins.

The Engineer Writer’s Guide
May-August 2009 Engineer 31

The Afghanistan Engineer District (AED) of the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

has partnered with Task Force Hammer, 62d Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy), to implement an officer professional development program whose purpose is to 

exhibit broad-scale project management and retain quality 

company grade engineer officers by offering perspective on 

future Army opportunities. From February through April 

2009, two-person engineer officer teams rotated through 

Kabul for three to five days to learn the workings of an engineer district. The teams met military and civilian staffs 

and learned about their various roles, visited projects in the 

Kabul area, attended meetings between project managers 

and contractors, and shadowed the district engineer commander. The goal was for each engineer officer to gain a 

better appreciation for project management and an awareness of opportunities within the highly diverse Engineer 

Regiment. Additional benefit came from interaction with 

professional engineers. 

AED Mission

A recent trip with AED included two days of project 

site visits and one day of accompanying the com-

.mander. The in-brief established that the AED mission is to conduct project management, construction, and 

engineering in the Central Asian republic of Afghanistan 

to facilitate the establishment of a secure and stable environment while promoting reconstruction and infrastructure 

development. The multitude of AED projects varies widely 

in dollar value and scope, with a large percentage being the 

construction and operations and management of Afghan 

National Security Force (ANSF) complexes to support the 

spread of governance. 

The first day of site visits included trips to observe construction at the Ministry of Defense in Kabul and inspect 

electrical upgrades at an Afghan National Army complex. 

The technical experience and professionalism that AED 

offers through the oversight and management of projects 

ensure a safe final product for the ANSF. The second day 

of site visits included tours of the Afghan National Military 

Academy (ANMA) and Kabul International Airport. The 

military academy, affectionately known as “East Point,” 

was between classes and at the end of its “Beast Year” of 

especially intense training. AED had recently added three 

new ANMA cadet graduates as staff members in order to 

develop young Afghan officers. The stop at the airport included visits to the Afghan National Air Corps barracks, 

offices, and hangars. The AED had overseen their construction and now conducts operations and management there. 

All of these facilities and programs expand the capability of 

the ANSF, which validates AED’s mission.

Shadowing the district engineer commander on the third 

day taught a lot about the workings of AED. The day included a meeting with a construction firm that has more 

than $100 million in contracts, and videoteleconferences 

with congressional staffers and students from the Maneuver Enhancement Brigade (MEB)/Brigade Special Troops 

Battalion (BSTB) Precommand Course at Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri. The day brought to light the immense 

By Captain L. Nicole Manteufel and Captain Jean D. Archer

Cadets at the Afghan National Military Academy learn to march.
32 Engineer May-August 2009

responsibility for construction that AED carries in rebuilding Afghanistan. For 2009, AED will have more than $4 

billion in construction projects throughout Afghanistan, 

with a staff of just a few hundred personnel. The relationships that AED has with its contractors and diplomatic and 

military organizations are at the heart of building up the 

country’s infrastructure and the ANSF, which will lead to a 

more stable and improved country. 

Valuable Lessons

The experience taught that oversight in project management is an absolute necessity. AED has found a direct correlation between the amount of time AED 

quality assurance inspectors spend on-site and a contractor’s quality of work and the timeliness of project completion. While U.S. troop construction projects normally are 

under the supervision of a platoon leader and platoon sergeant, many Commander’s Emergency Response Program 

projects do not receive the same level of quality assurance 

attention, due to personnel and location limitations. Since 

quality assurance checks are a key part of ensuring that 

projects are done well, efforts should be made to train Afghan engineers to undertake this responsibility. 

Another piece of information gained was the huge impact 

that long-lead items have on projects at all levels. Longlead items are for a specific project that cannot easily be 

purchased on the local economy and must be shipped from 

outside the country, or which must be fabricated after an 

order is placed. AED project managers teach their contractors backward planning in order to finish projects on time. 

At the platoon and company level, the need for materials 

must be identified, and those materials must be diligently 

tracked to ensure the timely completion of projects.

The trip also revealed the future plans for water management in Afghanistan. In the past, proper studies were not 

conducted before the construction of dams, which resulted 

in the massive loss of usable farmland. Having learned 

from the U.S. government’s failures in the 1950s to irrigate 

land with the Helmand Valley Authority, AED is conducting detailed studies before emplacing locks, dams, and new 

irrigation systems. Afghanistan needs a massive amount of 

water work, but it should start only after the proper data is 

collected. Hasty planning can yield unwanted results during execution.

In just three days, the AED officer professional development program succeeds in exposing junior officers to a critical mission and to efforts and programs they would otherwise 

never have known. It teaches lessons about the contracting 

process, the importance of project management—both by 

the contractor and by quality assurance officers—and the 

impact that AED has on the people of Afghanistan. The program has been a unique experience in which lieutenants 

and junior captains are able to visit multiple project sites 

and understand the role of AED and the opportunities other 

than troop-leading positions available to engineer officers to 

contribute to the counterinsurgency fight. 

As Major General Gregg F. Martin, former United States 

Army Engineer School Commandant, stated, one of the 

greatest aspects of the Engineer Regiment is that it offers 

more options and transferrable skills than any other Army 

branch. Engineers can be anything from combat warriors to 

nation builders. The AED officer professional development 

program has embraced Task Force Hammer officers to show 

what great engineers can do.

Captain Manteufel has served as a platoon leader for 

Charlie Company, 62d Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy) 

during the company’s 15-month deployment to Afghanistan. 

She graduated from the United States Military Academy 

with a bachelor’s in environmental science, then attended 

Basic Officer Leadership Course (BOLC) II at Fort Sill, 

Oklahoma, and BOLC III at Fort Leonard Wood. Upon her 

return to the states, she will attend the Engineer Captains 

Career Course at Fort Leonard Wood.

Captain Archer initially served as a platoon leader 

with Charlie Company, 62d Engineer Battalion (Combat) 

(Heavy) at Fort Hood, Texas. Upon the company’s deployment to Afghanistan, she was reassigned as the company 

executive officer, where she has served since February 2008. 

She holds a bachelor’s in civil engineering from the University of Florida, attended BOLC II at Fort Sill, and BOLC III 

at Fort Leonard Wood.

This Afghan depot was built with USACE oversight.
Mandatory Degrees for NCOs

May-August 2009 Engineer 33

By Major Dennis J. McGee

The original purpose of this article was to propose 

making college degrees a requirement for noncommissioned officers (NCOs), as it is for commissioned 

officers. However, research showed that there are already 

numerous programs to help Soldiers receive college credits 

to apply toward degrees. The focus now is to provide the 

critical resource of time for NCOs to get their degrees.

The United States Army has once again officially 

dedicated a year as the “Year of the Noncommissioned Officer (NCO).” In 1989, then 

Secretary of the Army John O. Marsh, 

Jr., along with Army Chief of Staff 

General Carl E. Vuono and Sergeant Major of the Army Julius 

W. Gates, declared the Army 

theme for 1989 as the “Year 

of the NCO.” General Vuono 

viewed it as an opportunity 

to enhance the responsibilities and the status of the 

NCO Corps through programs that underscored the 

four enduring roles of the 

NCO: leader, trainer, role 

model, and standard-bearer. 

He authorized promotion of an 

additional 3,000 Soldiers to the 

grade of sergeant (E-5) during the 

last eight months of fiscal year 1989. 

Shortages in that grade accounted for 

more than 66 percent of all NCO vacancies. 

Approximately 60,000 of 202,000 specialists and corporals (E-4) were eligible to advance to sergeant. The Army 

estimated that a one percent increase in NCO operating 

strength caused a nearly two percent increase in the number of units reporting readiness ratings at or above their 

authorized level of organization. By his action, the chief of 

staff raised the NCO strength to nearly 276,000.1

There is no doubt that today’s NCO Corps is unmatched 

anywhere in the world. The most frequently requested

military-to-military security cooperation training program 

by other nations is for their NCOs to attend one of our NCO 

courses. Today’s NCOs are also products of the world’s best 

military education system. The NCO Education System 

(NCOES) runs the spectrum from entry level leader training at the Warrior Leader Course to the Sergeants Major 

Academy. Throughout the careers of all Soldiers, NCOs are 

required to pass through these gates in the NCOES. The 

courses are all well structured and designed according to a 

set standard of learning. 

In addition to NCO academies, the Army has encouraged enlisted Soldiers to advance their education by other 

means. By 1952, the Army had developed the Army Education Program to allow Soldiers to attain credits for academic 

education. This program provided a number of ways for 

the enlisted Soldier to attain a high school or 

college diploma.2

Perhaps one of the biggest discriminators for promotion to the 

senior NCO ranks is the lack of a 

college degree. This has become 

even more important now as 

the Army has become greatly 

concerned with retaining 

midgrade NCOs. Like most 

professions, if there is no 

longer a chance of promotion, then many will choose 

to leave that career field and 

change jobs. On average, 

most NCOs have completed 

their first enlistment and are 

beyond four years of service.

By that time, they have comcpleted several military education 

courses, most of which are transferable 

as civilian education credits. The various 

programs offered by the Army Continuing Education System (ACES) permit Soldiers to take advantage 

of online colleges and universities that offer college credit 

for military training and education. Additionally, these 

post-secondary programs offer tuition assistance, flexible degree completion timelines, and civilian licensing

or certification.3

The Department of Veteran Affairs administers the various Montgomery-GI Bill programs that provide funding for 

college courses. There are also other programs that assist 

Soldiers with associate and baccalaureate degree programs 

through accredited colleges and universities and provide 

credit for Army institutional schooling and professional credentialing or licensing, such as—

Army University Access Online (eArmyU)

College of the American Soldier (CAS)

■

■

By that time, they have com-
May-August 2009

Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges–Army Degrees

(SOCAD)

Credentialing Opportunities Online (COOL)4

The challenge is finding the time to complete these 

degree requirements outside of the Army professional 

NCOES. NCOs who have college degrees have usually 

completed them on their own time, after duty hours, in deployed combat zones, or over many weekends, usually taking 

several years. 

If the Army is serious about recognizing its professional NCO Corps, then it should provide the opportunity for 

NCOs to complete their degrees either during or following 

one of their NCOES courses. Ideally, Soldiers attending a 

Basic or Advanced NCO Course (BNCOC/ANCOC) should 

have the opportunity to complete their associate’s or bachelor’s degree. The current operational tempo causes many of 

today’s leaders to be reluctant to release their NCO leaders 

to attend these schools. If the Army would make it mandatory for NCOs to complete college degrees, then this could 

serve as an impetus to force units to send NCOs to their 

respective NCOES courses on time. After, or in conjunction 

with, the course the NCOs could complete required college 

courses while on temporary duty away from the distractions of a unit, in an academic environment surrounded by 

their peers.

Another area of concern with mandatory degrees would 

be the types of degree required and whether they should 

be in any specific functional area. The Army has many examples of professionals who perform a trade but are not officially accredited or recognized by their profession or career 

field. As NCOs begin to take on leadership roles, they are 

placed in positions within the profession of arms that require 

them to be experts in their field or trade. For example, an 

engineer equipment operator must be trained and licensed 

just like a civilian crane operator; surveyors must be educated on how to properly use surveying instruments, just as 

a state-licensed surveyor is; and a prime power specialist 

must be qualified much like a certified electrical contractor. Another more generic comparison would be a company 

first sergeant who holds a bachelor’s in human resources. 

The first sergeant will have already completed numerous 

NCOES courses and is responsible for running the day-today operations of a company of 75 to 150 Soldiers, equivalent to a medium-size business. Since these Soldiers are 

receiving education and training similar or identical to 

■

■

34 Engineer

their civilian counterparts, they should be receiving the 

same state or national licensing or certification. 

The Army Career Tracker program5 is designed to

bring together under one portal all the educational resources available to guide Soldiers along a career path or 

military occupational specialty. The advantages of having 

this program complementing the NCOES have yet to be realized, but the Army should do more. Specifically, the Army 

should make—

An associate degree a requirement for promotion to

staff sergeant.

A bachelor’s degree a requirement for promotion to

master sergeant.

Time available at BNCOC and ANCOC to complete

these degrees. 

As the Army focuses this year on its NCO Corps and 

continues to transform the NCOES, it should make strides 

similar to those that were made 20 years ago during the last 

“Year of the NCO.”

Major McGee is an engineer officer attending the 

School of Advanced Military Studies at the United States 

Army Command and General Staff College. Previous 

assignments include brigade operations and training 

(S-3) officer, 130th Engineer Brigade; battalion S-3 officer, 84th Engineer Battalion; and Commander, Alpha 

Company, 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power), Fort 

Lewis, Washington.

Endnotes

1

History, “2009–The Year of the Noncommissioned

Officer,” <http://www.army.mil /yearofthenco/history5

.html>, accessed 12 May 2009.

2

Ibid.

3

United States Army Human Resource Command 

website, “Army Continuing Education Fact Sheet,” 

<https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/media/factsheets

/aces.htm>, accessed 12 May 2009.

4

Credentialing Opportunities Online website, <https://

www.cool.army.mil/overview.htm>, accessed 12 May 2009.

5Initiatives, “2009–The Year of the Noncommissioned Officer,” <http://www.army.mil/yearofthenco

/initiatives1.html>, website, accessed 12 May 2009.

■

■

■

Not a single one of us can afford to limp through our military life on the crutch of limited education.... Civilian 

education certainly enhances the individual’s personal and professional value and especially the NCO’s.... 

We aren’t talking about an entry on a service record. We’re talking about an individual acquiring more tools 

which will assist in daily living and certainly in the performance of military duties.

—SMA Leon L. Van Autreve, “Walking Tall—and Eager,” Soldiers, February 1974, p. 33
May-August 2009 Engineer 35

An assessment of collected material has identified 

significant gaps in the United States Army Center

 of Military History records on the War on Terrorism. The list below identifies the specific types of 

electronic and other documents being sought to fill these 

gaps. There is a critical need to collect the classified and 

unclassified operational records relating to Operation 

Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom under the 

provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 870-5, Military History: 

Responsibilities, Policies, and Procedures, and Field Manual 

1-20, Military History Operations. 

While many records have been collected by deployed 

United States Army military history detachments and 

other military historians, the gaps have constrained efforts 

by historians to chronicle the Total Army’s contributions to 

the war. In addition, processing veterans’ claims of posttraumatic stress disorder and other medical claims is 

extremely time-consuming due to missing or incomplete 

records. To date, the Army’s overall collection effort has 

focused primarily on Regular Army and Army National 

Guard brigade combat teams deployed to Iraq. Coverage 

of the activities of smaller National Guard and United 

States Army Reserve units during the War on Terrorism—

especially in Operation Enduring Freedom—is sorely 

deficient. Also, the records being collected are considered 

permanent historical records that must be retired through 

the Army records management system according to

AR 25-400-2, The Army Records Information Management 

System (ARIMS).

The Army needs help to solve this deficiency. Rather 

than pass the entire burden on to Army commands, the 

Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary 

of the Army has tasked the United States Army Records 

Management and Declassification Agency and the Center of 

Military History to work jointly to collect these operational 

records. The records of the Army staff, deployed units, 

and commands within the continental United States that 

provided critical support to warfighters from 11 September 

2001 to the present fall within these collection efforts. 

Also, individual chronicles, oral interviews, or statements

collected by United States Army Training and Doctrine 

Command units are to be considered records for the 

purpose of this effort. The records being collected by the 

Center of Military History will be considered permanent 

historical records that 

must be retired through 

ARIMS, according to AR 

25-400-2. Although finished 

products are welcome, the

Center is looking for raw

operational records to capture in its War on Terrorism 

collection mission. 

Unclassified documents 

and questions about handling classified materials 

should be sent to <GWOT

collect@conus.army.mil>.

Lieutenant Colonel Smith

is the Headquarters, Department of the Army, point 

of contact for the Center of 

Military History’s War on 

Terrorism records collection 

effort.

By Lieutenant Colonel Robert G. Smith

United States Army Center of Military History
36 Engineer May-August 2009

Charting new waters in preparing Yokosuka Naval 

Base infrastructure for arrival of the USS George 

Washington (carrier vessel nuclear [CVN] 73)—the 

United States Navy’s only nuclear aircraft carrier forwarddeployed outside the United States—the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (Japan Engineer District), Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) 

Far East, and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PSNS & IMF) successfully 

executed a multimillion-dollar military construction (MILCON) program and related projects on a very tight and

demanding schedule.

Bilateral Effort 

To make Yokosuka Naval Base (about 60 

miles south of Tokyo) ready for the aircraft 

carrier, the U.S. team undertook extensive 

MILCON facility and utility upgrades, and the government of Japan—under the host nation-funded 

construction (HNFC) program managed on the U.S. 

side by USACE—dredged more than 700,000 cubic 

meters of material from Truman Bay. A multiyear 

bilateral effort by the United States and the government of Japan assured that all technical, political, and environmental concerns were addressed in 

the planning, engineering, and construction.

The USS George Washington contributes to peace 

and stability in the Pacific and provides the United 

States 7th Fleet with greater range and strike capability. All systems were go when the aircraft carrier

arrived at Berth 12 on 25 September 2008, replacing 

the USS Kitty Hawk (CV63)—the Navy’s last conventionally 

powered aircraft carrier, which had departed Yokosuka on 

28 May 2008, slated for decommissioning. Close cooperation 

between Japanese and American representatives at many 

levels overcame a variety of challenges during the forward 

deployment of the USS George Washington. 

Planning and Preparation

Foremost and impacting all aspects of the program was 

the finite date established for the USS George Washington’s arrival. The date, driven by the passing of the USS 

Kitty Hawk’s 15-year service life extension after a 1987–

1991 overhaul, put the project start on a tight schedule. 

By Mr. Glenn T. Arakaki

Projects supporting USS George Washington were built on a 

limited-size area of Yokosuka Naval Base.

Photo by Catheren Gill
May-August 2009 Engineer 37

Coming on the heels of international agreement between the 

United States and Japan, the 

construction necessary to replace the USS Kitty Hawk could 

not slip.

The security classification

for the arrival of the USS 

George Washington was problematic for the design process for the project designated

P-998. The USACE Honolulu 

Engineer District selected the 

architect-engineering firm Parsons Corporation for its technical expertise and requisite 

workforce security clearances. 

Although cleared U.S. employees conducted design reviews, 

Japanese Master Labor Contract 

engineers working for the United 

States Navy and Japan Engineer 

District in Yokosuka, who were 

most familiar with existing utilities and infrastructure, were not 

able to review the Parsons P-998 plans until late in the design. This made it difficult to verify for interface checks or 

coordinate with ongoing major construction work at Berth 

12 under a separate host nation project designed years earlier in support of the USS Kitty Hawk.

However, weekly in-progress reviews (IPRs) by a team 

of USACE, NAVFAC, and Naval Sea Systems Command 

(NAVSEA) engineers ensured that recently completed HN 

construction as-built conditions were integrated into the 

P-998 design. Project managers from each organization 

brought the right expertise—USACE on government of 

Japan host nation and MILCON design and construction, 

NAVFAC on naval base/berth/power construction, and 

NAVSEA on nuclear-powered ship requirements.

Imperative to success throughout the make-ready program was commander support that gave the effort priority. 

All commanders ensured that project delivery teams (PDTs) 

were resourced with personnel having the right skill sets 

and were empowered to get results.

Rapport and Coordination

The P-998 PDT, composed of representatives from 

the United States Army and Navy, the United States 

Forces Japan (USFJ), and the government of Japan, 

formed an interservice, international team. This created some unique relationships in the military engineering community. Although the Navy’s capability as 

MILCON agent worldwide is renowned, USACE (in its 

role as the Department of Defense-designated construction agent for Japan) brought on NAVFAC Far East as a

Japan Engineer District “customer” for P-998, while at 

the same time NAVFAC Far East executed other projects 

of its own related to the stationing of the carrier. PSNS & 

IMF, the subject matter expert for nuclear aircraft carrier

support, provided a tremendous amount of specialized technical input during design and construction phases. This required intensive coordination by Japan Engineer District 

team members to determine if the technical input was within the scope of the project award and would require changes 

or other contractual actions. 

These relationships called for the establishment of rapport between Army and Navy counterparts throughout all 

levels of the PDT. To achieve this, a senior engineer review 

group (SERG) consisting of senior leaders from Japan Engineer District, NAVFAC Far East, NAVSEA, Public Works 

Department (PWD), Commander Fleet Activities Yokosuka 

(CFAY), Ship Repair Facility (SRF), and PSNS & IMF met 

monthly to provide effective guidance and help facilitate 

resolution of critical issues.

Contracting and Funding 

The Japan Engineer District executed three P-998

MILCON contracts with a program amount of $67 million. 

Wharf Upgrades. The approximately $36 million wharf 

upgrades project provided one-of-a-kind systems never 

before constructed overseas for the operation and maintenance of nuclear aircraft carriers. The project retrofitted Yokosuka’s Berth 12 utilities to include shore power, 

freeze seal air, and high-pressure air systems. Parsons 

completed the design for a facility used to produce grade 

A water through filtering, reverse osmosis, degasification, and demineralization processes. PSNS & IMF procured and installed the system downstream of the storage 

tanks to the distribution to the carrier, while the Japan

Engineer District construction contractor Tokyu Construction Company, Ltd., was responsible for the remainder of 

Personnel from NAVFAC Far East and Japan Engineer District Yokosuka Resident 

Office test temporary electrical panels during a joint safety inspection.

Photo by Daniel Fujimoto
38 Engineer May-August 2009

the looped system. The facility was constructed on Berth 12 

after the demolition of 18,000 cubic meters of mountainside.

Detailed coordination with PSNS & IMF was necessary 

throughout the planning, design, and construction. Due to 

the unique technology and site conditions, more than 60 

contract changes were made for the wharf upgrade. 

The project also retrofitted Berth 13 to provide “hotel” 

utilities by providing a potable water supply line, a wastewater forced main, and electrical distribution. Site conditions complicated the project; however, planners worked 

out an acceptable construction modification to meet the 

needs of the customer. 

Berth 10/11, for the nuclear aircraft carrier maintenance 

barge, was constructed along an existing seawall near Berth 

12. The Japan Engineer District worked with government 

of Japan and United States Navy entities to determine 

ownership and proper custody and disposal of a preexisting pontoon and executed its safe removal for nominal cost, 

ensuring that construction could begin in time to meet the 

tight schedule. Berth 10/11 is unique to the Navy for maintenance barge berthing. 

The P-998 wharf upgrades, started 30 May 2006, was the 

largest MILCON executed by USACE for the United States 

Navy in Japan and the first such MILCON for Japan’s second largest construction contractor, Tokyu. The construction contract was completed 6 June 2008.

Power Upgrades. This contract built a new switchgear 

facility for the Yokosuka Naval Base to expand the existing 

60-hertz power grid. The $22 million design-build project 

was awarded February 2007 to Japan’s largest construction contractor, Obayashi Corporation. The Japan Engineer District and the Honolulu District Regional Technical 

Center worked collaboratively to see the project to a 7 August 2008 contract completion. Not all challenges were technical, however. Some equipment, such as the 4.5 megavoltampere (MVA) frequency converter and 15 MVA synchronous condenser, were of American manufacture, causing 

complications for the Japanese contractor in controlling 

major equipment deliveries, due to export requirements. 

The project installed digital supervisory controls and 

data acquisition (SCADA) equipment for collecting and displaying real-time operational data to the power system operators. The SCADA system encompasses a central control 

station, a high-bandwidth fiber distribution network and 60 

intelligent remote devices that provide system parameters 

every two seconds, process data, and respond immediately 

to control signals. The new SCADA system occupies less 

than 10 percent of the space of the base’s existing system 

and provides the memory capacity and expansion capability 

to replace it. 

Power to the switchgear is provided by the existing 

switchgear facility at Yokosuka Naval Base and by an adjacent plant that contains three 5,820-kilowatt gas engines 

and a 7,200-kilowatt gas turbine for 60-hertz electrical 

power and steam service to shore and ship areas. Limited 

confines created a constantly conflicting workspace environment and necessitated daily coordination between the

two projects.

Building Addition. The Japan Engineer District 

awarded the contract for the Building 3128 second floor addition in May 2006 to a third contractor, Ichibo Corporation, a relatively small but experienced firm that has completed U.S.-funded work

across Japan. The new second floor, a $2.5 million project, 

houses the Commander, Submarine Group Seven (COMSUBGRU-7), command structure and was the first project 

finished, with construction completed in June 2007.

Dredging Truman Bay

In addition to MILCON, the

Japan Engineer District also

provided construction management services consisting of engineering and construction surveillance for the host nation

Facilities Improvement Program (FIP) project NA-027, 

Dredging of Truman Bay. 

The project included the dredging of Berths 8/9 and 12 and 

the adjacent turning basin to a 

depth of 15.24 meters to support 

movements of the USS George 

Washington. Work also included 

the removal and reinstallation

of several buoys and their 

concrete moorings.

Medium-voltage cabling is supported by new cable trays in a Yokosuka Naval Base 

utility tunnel.

Photo by Yoshio Noji
May-August 2009 Engineer 39

Planners ensured that the contractor under a government of Japan contract acquired a dredge permit from the 

Yokosuka Port Authority and erected silt screen fences required by the city of Yokosuka. The Ministry of Environment issued a dumping permit; however, daily quantity 

was limited for disposal within a joint U.S. military and 

Japan Self-Defense Forces training area approximately 150 

kilometers to the south. Additionally, the Ministry of Defense and South Kanto Defense Bureau (SKDB) worked for 

months to reach agreement with protestors and the Chiba 

fishermen’s association over the project.

Although the dredge plan appeared simple, execution 

was complicated by ship movements, Japan Engineer 

District and Navy contractor activities, and bad weather.

Japan Engineer District held weekly coordination meetings 

to resolve complex scheduling issues and to enact solutions 

that included night dredging, doubling the dredge fleet, increasing the number of transport ships, and coordinating 

the continuous reestablishment of silt screen fence boundaries. The Commander, United States Naval Forces, Japan, 

worked closely with the director of the SKDB to ensure that 

the project stayed on schedule. In dredging from 10 August 

2007 through 3 August 2008, the project relocated more 

than 700,000 cubic meters of material.

Safety First

The projects achieved outstanding safety records—

282,914 contact man-hours for the wharf upgrade and

114,660 contact man-hours for the power upgrade

—with no recordable lost-time accidents. Japan Engineer 

District conducted safety oversight and established mentoring/capacity development relationships with the contractors. Japan Engineer District and NAVFAC funded 

Japanese translation of Engineer Manual (EM) 385-1-1, 

Safety and Health Requirements, to ensure that Japanese 

contractors had a clear understanding. Despite the challenges presented by language and cultural differences, industry practices, and variance in U.S. and Japanese safety 

regulations, the following helped ensure accident prevention and awareness:

Effective use of composite risk management principles

Preparatory safety meetings

Management staff safety surveillance

Routine joint safety inspections

Daily contractor safety tool box meetings

Proactive quality assurance representatives and contractor safety and occupational health officers

The mindset that “Everyone is a Safety Officer”

The final result in this complex, multicontract project 

was on-time and within-budget delivery of shore-to-ship 

support systems for the USS George Washington.

Mr. Arakaki is the Chief, Navy/Marine Corps Branch, 

Programs and Project Management Division, Japan Engineer District, United States Army Corps of Engineers. He 

holds a bachelor’s in mechanical engineering from California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo.

Note: On 10 July 2009, USACE announced that the 

Japan District PDT for the Navy MILCON Project P-998 

Wharf Upgrade, Power Upgrade, Building 3128 Addition, 

and the Host Nation Project Dredge Truman Bay won the 

2009 USACE PDT of the Year Honors Award. USACE commended the PDT for “completing the project and associated 

facilities well below the USACE metrics for cost and time 

growth. The PDT coordinated a highly complex program 

with several U.S. Navy organizations, the U.S. Forces Japan and, most important, with the Host Nation of Japan.”

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Yokosuka Naval Base Ship Repair Facility personnel connect maintenance barge spud 

mooring collars to piles at the new seawall.

Photo by Shizuo Yoshimura
40 Engineer May-August 2009

Decaying homes with blown-out windows, overgrown 

grass on lawns, and 1950s vintage cars parked in 

dilapidated garages. That was the scene at Davids 

Island—more like the surreal landscape in a disaster movie, 

as if the residents of this little village just picked up and left. 

This aptly describes the abandoned remains of Fort Slocum, 

a former United States military base that at one time 

occupied Davids Island, an uninhabited 

80-acre piece of property located in the 

Long Island Sound, one-half mile off the 

shore of New Rochelle, New York.

In December 2008, the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers completed 

its work at the site (begun in 2005) of 

demolishing and removing 93 decaying 

structures, thereby creating open space. 

This work was performed at the request 

of the Office of Economic Adjustment 

and the city of New Rochelle, the island’s 

owner, who plans to revive it and make it 

accessible for public use. 

Military Chronicle

I

n 1867, Fort Slocum was established 

on the island where a Civil War 

hospital once stood, and in over 

a century the fort has reappeared in 

various military incarnations. The active post was used for 

several years by the United States Air Force and has served 

as a military hospital, an artillery mortar battery, and a 

training post. Fort Slocum was a staging area for troops 

heading overseas during the two world wars, and during 

World War II was the most active recruitment center in the 

United States. 

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

Oblique aerial photograph of Fort Slocum, 15 November 1961

Photo courtesy Fort Slocum Alumni and Friends Collection

Photo courtesy United States Army Corps of Engineers
May-August 2009 Engineer 41

The fort’s last military incarnation was as a missile 

command base in the 1960s. Since then, the island has lain 

dormant, and the public has been denied access. However, 

Davids Island has been eyed as a possible location for a 

power plant. In addition, the sanctuary’s wide variety of 

marine life and birds and more than a mile of beach have 

made it tempting for real estate mogul Donald Trump to 

consider placing luxury condos on its shores. For whatever 

purpose is decided for the island, the Corps has made the 

site clean and safe for the public while also preserving the 

area’s wildlife—which includes threatened animal species—

and its rich military history. 

Ecological and Historical Concerns

I

n more recent years, Davids Island has been considered 

as a location for a public park and nature preserve. In 

New York State, the osprey is considered a “species of 

concern,” which means the bird’s population has declined in 

the past and is making a slow recovery. The first task the 

project team performed before beginning any demolition 

was to move a large osprey family nest inland from the 

island’s pier in order to protect it from the construction.

The project might seem an easy one—demolishing 

buildings with a standard complement of the right equipment. But more than that, there was great interest to 

preserve some of the rich history of the island. The Corps 

understood this and, as in many times past, came up with 

a variety of solutions to support the historical aspects of 

the project. Extensive research was performed on each of 

the island’s 93 structures, which were of varying military 

architectural styles.

This research included digging up historical data, taking 

photos, and performing archeological studies. About onethird of the structures were identified as having historical or 

archeological significance and, if desired, could be restored 

or partially restored. After research was completed on each 

of the buildings, the structures were demolished if they 

were determined not restorable. In this way, construction 

and historical preservation efforts worked in tandem to 

move the project forward without wasting time and money.

Demolition or Preservation

Last fall, one of the key structures on the island was 

demolished, marking the near completion of the 

project. The island’s large water tower that has been 

a sailing “landmark” for more than 78 years, and which 

marks the edge of the island, was brought down. Much of 

the material waste from the demolition that included a 

large amount of steel is being recycled, especially from the 

water tower. Hazardous materials, such as asbestos, are being removed and brought to licensed facilities. 

The Corps worked with a number of interested parties 

from Westchester County and the city of New Rochelle 

to determine what should be done with those historic 

structures that could be preserved. City officials decided to 

not restore any of the island’s structures to avoid funding 

their maintenance before the use of the island is determined. 

However, remnants of the former fort will be preserved on 

the island for the public to view, including the fort’s overall 

landscaped vegetation, a seawall, the flagpole, mortar pits 

from the late nineteenth century, tennis courts, walkways, 

and a cannon used during the Spanish-American War. 

Summary

To enable the public to find out more about these 

historic items—as well as other aspects of the 

fort—the Corps, the Westchester County Historical 

Society, and the New Rochelle Public Library are collaborating to create a virtual archive and public exhibit 

that will be viewable on the Internet. This virtual archive 

and exhibit will include all of the extensive research the 

Corps gathered during this project, in both print and audio 

formats, including the historical data on each of the fort’s 

structures, photos, maps, videos, and oral histories from 

more than two dozen individuals who used to live and work 

at Fort Slocum. In addition, various museums will include 

the Corps reports in their archives. 

The future of the island is still undecided, but what is 

certain is that what has primarily been a wildlife sanctuary 

will soon be accessible to the public. And speaking of 

wildlife, the osprey family—whose nest had to be moved at 

the beginning of this project—has since grown threefold. 

Maybe this signifies an adaptable and prosperous future for 

Davids Island.

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

States Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. She can 

be reached at <joanne.castagna@usace.army.mil>. 

Drill Hall/gymnasium, built in 1909

Photo courtesy Tetra Tech EC, Inc.
42 Engineer May-August 2009

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description

(and Current Status)

Publications Currently Under Revision

FM 3-34 Engineer Operations Jan 04

FM 3-34.22 

(FM 3-34.221)

(FM 5-71-2)

(FM 5-71-3)

(FM 5-7-30)

Engineer Operations

–Brigade Combat Team

and Below

Pending

(Jan 05)

(Jun 96)

(Oct 95)

(Dec 94)

This is the engineer keystone manual. It encompasses all engineer doctrine; integrates 

the three engineer functions of combat, general, and geospatial engineering; and 

addresses engineer operations across the entire spectrum of operations.

Status: Published.

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center 

Training and Doctrine Development Department

Doctrine Division, Engineer Branch

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

FM 3-90.11 

(FM 3-34.2)

Combined Arms Mobility 

Operations

Aug 00

Combat Engineering

This 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: To be published in 4QFY09. To be consolidated into FM 3-34 in 4QFY10.

FM 3-34.23 

(FM 5-116)

(FM 5-100-15)

(FM 5-71-100)

Engineer Operations

 –Echelons Above Brigade

Combat Team

Pending

(Feb 99)

(Jun 95)

(Apr 93)

This is a full revision, to include renaming and renumbering of FM 3-34.2, Combined 

Arms Breaching Operations. Changes in the force structure have required adjustment 

of the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) associated with breaching and 

clearance operations. The United States Marine Corps (USMC) plans to adopt this 

manual as well.

Status: To be published in 4QFY10.

FM 3-90.13 

(FM 5-102)

(FM 90-7)

Combined Arms Obstacle 

Integration

Pending

(Sept 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) and full spectrum operations, along with emerging doctrine on networked 

munitions.

Status: On hold for release of FM 3-90, Tactics.

This new manual will encompass engineer operations in support of brigade combat 

teams (BCTs) (heavy, infantry, and Stryker–the armored cavalry regiment) and 

their primary subordinate units (infantry battalion, Stryker battalion, combined arms 

battalion, and the reconnaissance squadron). This manual will supersede FM 3-

34.221, FM 5-7-30, FM 5-71-2, and FM 5-71-3. 

Status: Published February 2009. To be consolidated into FM 3-34 in 4QFY10.

FM 3-34.300 

(FM 5-103)

Survivability Jun 85 This manual provides survivability information needed by commanders and staffs at 

the tactical level. It includes guidance on integrating survivability into planning and 

orders production and creation of the engineer running estimate. It provides examples 

of a survivability capabilities card, matrix, and timeline to assist with the planning, 

revision, and conduct of specific survivability tasks. The USMC plans to adopt this 

manual as well.

Status: On hold; no rewrite date projected.

Organizational Manuals

FM 3-34.400 General Engineering

(FM 5-104)

This manual describes the operational environment (OE) and how to apply and integrate 

general engineering principles in support of full spectrum operations. It focuses on the 

establishment and maintenance of lines of communication and engineer support to 

sustainment operations throughout the area of operations. Although not designated as 

a multi-Service publication, it is intended to inform all Service components of the types 

of general engineering tasks, planning considerations, the variety of units available to 

perform them, and the capabilities of Army engineers to accomplish them. The USMC 

designation will be added to this manual.

Status: Published 9 December 2008.

Nov 86
May-August 2009 Engineer 43

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description

(and Current Status)

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center 

Training and Doctrine Development Department

Doctrine Division, Engineer Branch

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

General Engineering

FM 3-34.410

Volumes I & II 

(FM 5-430-00-1

& 5-430-00-2)

Design of Theater of Operations 

Roads, Airfields, and Helipads

Aug 94;

Sep 94

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

theater operations (TO) in the design of roads, airfields, and helipads. It is currently dualdesignated with the Air Force. The Air Force (as well as the Navy and USMC) plans to 

adopt the new manual also.

Status: Pending completion of drainage chapter.

FM 3-34.451

(FM 5-472)

Materials Testing Dec 92 This manual will provide technical information for obtaining samples and performing engineering tests and calculations on soils, bituminous paving mixtures, and 

concrete. For use in military construction. The test procedures and terminology will 

conform to the latest methods and specifications of the American Society for Testing 

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

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

complete lab facilities are unavailable or impractical to use. The USMC plans to adopt this 

manual as well.

Status: Preparing final approved draft: to be published in 1QFY10.

FM 3-34.465 

(FM 3-34.465 

& FM 3-34.468)

Quarry Operations Mar 05;

Dec 03

(Apr 94)

This manual outlines the methods and procedures used in the exploration for and 

operation of pits and quarries. It provides information on equipment required for operating 

pits and quarries and for supplying crushed mineral products, but does not cover the 

operation of the stated types of equipment. 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 in 1QFY10.

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 

USMC includes the newest technologies, current practices, and revised formulas.

Status: Estimated date for posting to Army Knowledge Online (AKO) is 4QFY09.

FM 3-34.469 

(FM 5-484)

Multi-Service Well Drilling 

Operations

Mar 94

FM 3-34.485 

(FM 5-415)

Firefighting Operations Feb 99 This manual gives directions on deploying and using engineer firefighting teams. These 

teams provide fire prevention/protection, aircraft crash/rescue, natural cover, and 

hazardous material (HAZMAT) (incident) responses within a TO. This is a parallel effort 

with the revision of the firefighting Army regulation (AR) to bring both policy and doctrine 

current with required certifications, newest technologies, and current practices.

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

Geospatial Engineering

FM 3-34.600 

(FM 3-34-230)

Geospatial Operations 3 Aug 00 This full revision of FM 3-34.230, Geospatial Operations, will incorporate changes as a 

result of FM 3-34, Engineer Operations, and FM 3-0, Operations. Geospatial engineering 

consists of 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 1QFY10.

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 2009.

FM 3-34.500 

(FM 3-100.4)

Environmental Considerations in 

Military Operations

Jun 00 This manual provides environmental protection procedures during all types of operations. 

It states the purposes of military environmental protection, a description of legal 

requirements, and a summary of current military programs. It also describes how to 

apply risk management methods to identify actions that may harm the environment and 

appropriate steps to prevent or mitigate damage.

Status: Estimated date for posting to AKO is 4QFY09.
44 Engineer May-August 2009

The Engineer Skills Development Workshop (ESDW), 

a Commander’s Emergency Response Program 

(CERP)-funded training and education initiative, 

is founded on an Afghan-American partnership that is developing a skilled construction workforce capacity in one of 

Afghanistan’s most remote provinces. Of the nearly 400,000 

people who live in the province, 99 percent live in rural 

districts with minimal exposure to skills enhancement opportunities. Half of the province is mountainous, and the 

eastern side borders the hinterlands of Pakistan. This geography explains why the region is accessible to insurgent 

forces that run intimidation and recruiting campaigns 

among the population. To counteract their influence, the 

government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan aims to 

bring development to its citizens in the forms of infrastructure improvements and educational opportunities. 

Conception

The Afghan Skilled Labor Academy, simply called

the Winter Workshop, was executed first by Task 

Force Pacemaker, 864th Engineer Battalion 

(Combat) (Heavy), and the provincial reconstruction team 

(PRT) in February 2006. It was conducted in the winter 

when the construction tempo was low, allowing Soldiers 

to serve as instructors. The immediate purpose was to 

teach Afghan contractors and their laborers construction skills in carpentry and masonry. The Task Force 

By Captain Sharmistha Mohapatra

Figure 1

Progression From Laborer to Contractor/Owner

Special Skills

Carpentry

Masonry

Electrical

Plumbing

Taught by Local

Foreman Training

Risk Management

Quality Control

Quality Assurance

National Contractor

Subcontractor Training

Project Management

Critical Path Method

Project Crashing

Taught by Local

National Contractor and

American University of

Afghanistan

Taught by 

American

University

of Afghanistan

Contractor/Owner Training

In-depth Project Management

Estimating

Budgeting

Contracting
May-August 2009 Engineer 45

Pacemaker engineer leadership, having received insight

from visiting jobsites and talking to contractors, developed 

the curriculum for the original Winter Workshop using as a 

template a course taught at Gulfport, Mississippi. The PRT 

facilitated the local government advertisement and press 

coverage while the provincial engineer was responsible for 

civilian enrollment. A contractor provided CERP-funded 

billeting, food, transportation, tools, and materials for the 

students. Total expenses came to $198,500.

The planning committee decided to start with a 

40-hour, 7-day workshop. Ten Afghan National Army engineers attended a practice training session, giving the U.S. 

military instructors time to rehearse and amend the curriculum. For the workshop itself, 63 civilian contractors 

and laborers enrolled. For the first 3 days, students built 

wooden guard shacks; for the last 3 days, they placed a concrete slab and constructed a short masonry wall. During the 

classroom training, contractor students shared their business experiences and practices, to include contract reading, 

quality control, and quality assurance. Though brief, the 

discussion proved that students thirsted for knowledge of 

the construction business. Graduation was held on the seventh day, with graduates receiving certificates of completion from local Afghan government officials. The students 

also were presented with their tools to give them an advantage in securing employment. 

This first workshop served as a base from which advanced 

workshops could be developed and exported to other regions 

throughout Afghanistan. During the first quarter of 2008, 

Task Force Pacemaker, on its second Operation Enduring 

Freedom tour, took the next step to spread this initiative. 

It conducted 1-week workshops at forward operating bases 

(FOBs) in two regional provinces, training more than 180 

Afghans. At one FOB, 25 students went on to gain employment on the base. While contractors provided the logistical support for the training, there remained heavy United 

States Army involvement in coordinating the instruction 

and administration of the program. Total expenses came 

to $540,000.

Advanced Development

I

n May 2008, Task Force Hammer, 62d Engineer Battalion, began to amplify the efforts of Task Force Pacemaker by planning for a year-round program with 

additional construction subjects taught in a three-tiered, 

progressive approach. The new curriculum—the ESDW—

consisted of four vertical construction courses in the 

first tier: 

10 days of carpentry training

15 days of masonry training

■

■

Evolved Concept

Figure 2

Enroll in the 

American University

of Afghanistan

Construction

Management

Program

Re-enter

workforce
12 days of electrical training

8 days of plumbing training

After completing the first tier of laborer training, exceptional students could move up to the second tier with 14 

days of foreman training, then to the third tier with 10 days 

of subcontractor training. A fourth tier, yet to be developed, 

will provide university-level construction management 

training for contractors. 

Each laborer class covered the fundamentals of construction, including safety practices and international building 

standards. Students received hands-on training on projects 

such as constructing a hut, placing a concrete pad, wiring 

an electrical system, or installing a water basin. Students 

exhibiting higher aptitudes were recommended by the 

course’s Afghan technical director to pursue the foreman 

course, which starts with practical laborer construction 

skills and then advances to materials estimation, risk management, and quality control. Finally, the subcontractor 

course emphasizes project management for those seeking, 

or already working in, supervisory positions. Each course 

was planned not to exceed 2 weeks so that graduates could 

return to the workforce quickly, minimizing disruption to 

their wage-earning potential. Despite losing 8 to 15 days 

of wages, the benefit of attending a course yielded workers 

with higher earning power as semiskilled laborers.

To execute this design full-time, the civil-military operations (CMO) section had to overcome resource restrictions. 

Because troops were unavailable as instructors and only 

two people were in the section, CMO hired nine trilingual 

Afghan engineers as the primary instructors of the training. 

These men were employed by the same contractor who provided the materials and tools for the workshops. In August, 

the section ran a 2-week train-the-trainer session to prepare the instructors to lead their own classes in technical 

and administrative faculties. Members of the CMO section 

realized that shifting from a military-led to an Afghan-led 

program would be beneficial for several reasons. It would 

minimize language and cultural barriers between students 

and instructors and give students educated role models from 

among their own countrymen. Putting the training onus on 

the Afghan instructors would also force the staff to implement their own chain of command and develop their own 

leadership skills. In the long run, this model would ease the 

transition to total autonomy.

To maximize government involvement, the provincial 

governor reviewed and approved the training initiative 

and delegated advertisement and student recruitment to 

his director of social work and labor. This director was responsible for passing on the compiled list of students to the 

contracted all-Afghan instructor team, which then provided students with free lodging, food, transportation, takehome safety equipment and tools, materials, and invaluable training for the duration of the course.

 From September 2008 through February 2009, vertical construction training took place on an FOB to provide 

a secure training site and to allow the CMO section to 

■

■

provide constant technical and administrative guidance 

to the ESDW staff. During this time, the staff conducted 

one masonry, one electrical, one plumbing, one foreman, 

one contractor (revised from being called subcontractor), and two carpentry classes. In after-action reviews, 

students surprisingly commented that they wanted longer courses with more exposure to practical construction. 

They recommended teaching additional subjects such 

as furniture making, insulation installation, generator repair, shower installation, steelwork, and materials

testing. 

From October through November 2008, a second contract executed the horizontal ESDW. This training took 

place both on and off the FOB, led by a technical directorengineer and 11 skilled operator-instructors. The students 

spent 11 days learning to operate heavy equipment, including bulldozers, graders, rollers, water trucks, and bucket 

loaders. Then they spent 5 days on a capstone road project 

for the local bazaar. The ensuing foreman class ran for 15 

days, executing road and land upgrades around the city. 

Combining construction training with urban development 

projects spurred the idea of including this practice in the 

vertical ESDW as well. This benefited the city and gave students a sense of civic pride. A downside to the horizontal 

ESDW was that because of poor recruitment efforts, only 22 

students arrived to fill the 42 allotted slots. For the ensuing 

courses, Task Force Hammer got the word out on the provincial radio station. As time progressed, this enrollment 

method was successful and the coordination responsibility 

was passed on to the contractors.

It became apparent that the vertical engineering instructors, though technically savvy, lacked sufficient practical 

construction experience. In January 2009—at the instructors’ request—the CMO section augmented the training 

team with skilled workers from each trade. Henceforth, 

each engineer was paired with a tradesman in a relationship analogous to a platoon leader and platoon sergeant. 

After integrating the new staff (to include a second technical director), it became the natural course of action to divide 

the instructors and execute two simultaneous skilled-trade 

courses. This maintained an ideal ratio of one instructor 

to four students and generated geometric growth in the

ESDW program.

In February, the officer in charge of the Task Force 

Hammer CMO met with a representative from the United 

States Agency for International Development (USAID) to 

exchange information about the ESDW program and another training center, which offers 3-month classes in construction skills. The Task Force Hammer officer came away 

with instructional material needed for lengthening classes, 

and the USAID advisor came away with the tiered-training 

model of skills development. Back at the FOB, the vertical workshop engineers incorporated the new material into 

their existing training plan and identified civic projects for 

practical training. The new program, scheduled to go into 

effect in June, implemented a reverse tiered-training approach. Instead of conducting separate classes that progressed from laborer to foreman to contractor, the class was 

46 Engineer May-August 2009
a semester-long collaborative effort, with students interacting as they would in real-world projects.

In the midst of planning curriculum changes, the vertical ESDW reached a critical milestone during April—the 

movement of the training site from the FOB into the provincial capital. The provincial director of tribal affairs volunteered his compound for classroom space in exchange 

for an upgrade of his grounds and buildings. This move 

allowed greater accessibility to the population, which otherwise would have been afraid to come onto the FOB. In 

addition, the physical transition signified a crucial step that 

the ESDW instructors took toward autonomy. 

During this time, Task Force Storm, 168th Engineer Brigade, obtained the Green Machine, an apparatus for making bricks from compressed earth. This novel technology 

uses natural soil mixed with a minimal amount of cement 

to produce interlocking bricks that do not require mortar. 

The spring masonry class experimented with this machine, 

using the bricks to construct a test building for the tribal 

affairs compound. Time will tell how these bricks fare in Afghanistan and whether their use will be a viable alternative 

construction method in an earthquake zone. 

April also marked the beginning of the second round 

of horizontal workshops. The contract implemented the 

reverse-tiered, semester program with the first 21 days 

dedicated to foreman training, followed by 66 days of joint 

foreman and operator collaboration. Equipment familiarization took place on the FOB for the first month and the 

practical roadwork projects began in June. The contractor’s 

design engineer had met with the local mayor to identify 

and prioritize horizontal projects, to include road upgrades 

for the bazaar and earthwork for a future subdivision.

Statistics

As of 13 June 2009, the ESDW had graduated 247 

Afghans and presented a total of 299 certificates, 

.including the students who returned for additional 

courses. The ages of students ranged from 15 to 60 years, 

with an average of 20.2 years. Graduates had an average of 

9 years in the workforce but only 3 years of formal schooling. 

Only 40 percent of the laborer students were literate, hence 

the impetus to improve their handiwork skills. Foreman 

and contractor students, in order to be capable supervisors, 

had to be able to read and write to enroll. Fifty-four percent 

of the graduates were married, with an average household 

size of 12.3 per student, making secondary benefits available to more than 2,300 family members. Although tracking 

students after they graduated was difficult, it was safe to 

presume that at least 40 percent of graduates received a job 

immediately after course completion.

May-August 2009 Engineer 47

Carpentry students erect a wall for a B-hut.
In the 11 months that the initial vertical ESDW ran, 

more than $1.2 million were injected into the local Afghan 

economy through the purchase of tools, equipment and materials and the salaries for 32 employees. Total expenditures for the fall 2008 horizontal ESDW came to $394,796, 

including the cost of 13 pieces of rented heavy equipment, 

salaries for 23 employees, and gravel. 

Way Ahead

Currently, the focus is on shifting from the short 

training sessions to the semester program. On 

28 June 2009, the contractor class began with 

10 days of theoretical work, followed by 21 days of joint 

training with the vertical foreman class and another 21 

days of joint training with the horizontal foreman class. 

This concept was designed to give contractors enough 

field time in both vertical and horizontal disciplines to 

practice their planning and supervisory skills. The vertical foreman class, after its initial 3 weeks of hands-on 

construction, will then go on to train and supervise the 

follow-on laborer students—either masonry and plumbing or carpentry and electrical—for another 76 days.

In total, contractors will receive 52 days of training, vertical foremen 97 days, vertical laborers 76 days, horizontal 

foremen 87 days, and heavy equipment operators 66 days. 

The extended duration meets the requests of the students 

and follows the USAID model. Student stipends matching 

unskilled laborer wages serve to alleviate enrollee worry 

about lost earnings. 

The long-term vision is 

to establish the provincial 

capital as the education and 

trades training hub of the 

region. One of Task Force 

Hammer’s final accomplishments was winning approval from the Ministry of 

Education to occupy the local Center for Educational 

Excellence facility for the 

workshops. Using this location gives both workshops a 

centralized location to work 

and consolidate both vertical and horizontal ESDW 

staff and students. It also 

provides free lodging for 

out-of-town students.

Additionally, Combined 

Task Force Castle, 420th 

Engineer Brigade, began 

talks with a couple of American universities to develop 

a 2-year construction management degree program for 

contractors. The idea was to 

send exceptional students, 

engineers, and current contractors to Kabul for further study in an emerging construction management major program at the American University of Afghanistan (AUoA). When Combined Task Force 

Castle redeployed in March 2009, this initiative was passed 

on to the incoming unit, Combined Task Force Storm.

Although currently there is collaboration between the Afghan government and coalition forces, the ultimate goal for 

the ESDW is to be a self-sustaining entity that continues to 

shine as a beacon of progress for the people of the province. 

With the provincial government having very limited funds, 

the appeal must be directed at the national ministerial levels. Some suggestions have been to request support from 

the Ministries of Labor, Social Affairs, Martyrs, and Disabled; Rural Rehabilitation and Development; or Transport 

and Civil Aviation. Another possibility under consideration 

is to request financial support from the Ministry of Defense 

in exchange for training Afghan National Army engineers 

in a program resembling advanced individual training in 

the United States Army.

Captain Mohapatra is the civil-military operations officer 

in charge for the 62d Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy), 

168th Engineer Brigade. Previously she was an earthmoving platoon leader with the 62d Engineer Battalion, and 

a support platoon leader with the Special Troops Battalion, 

2d Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division. She is a 

2006 honor graduate of the Engineer Officer Basic Course at 

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

48 Engineer May-August 2009

A technical director reviews B-hut designs and work schedules with a student.
May-August 2009 Engineer 49

This summary of lessons learned after a year as a 

platoon leader of a horizontal construction platoon 

in Iraq details what one unit learned that might 

help other units that deploy. It will also serve as a reference for the specific missions our platoon executed and 

what we learned from them. The lessons learned apply 

across a broad spectrum of operations, no matter what 

engineer missions are being performed. The 561st Engineer Company deployed with more than 150 Soldiers—

3 line platoons, and 1 maintenance platoon during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The platoons included 2 horizontal platoons and 1 vertical platoon. 

One of the most important things we learned—through 

good and bad experiences—is the importance of a reconnaissance. The unit being serviced will send pictures and 

descriptions of the work it wants done and may even specify 

what equipment to bring. But that unit’s leaders probably 

are not engineers, and even if they are, they will not be 

executing the mission. The battalion will be pushing for 

an accurate schedule and the earliest possible start date. 

Remember that the schedule is likely to be much more accurate if you have walked the site yourself. It could save 

additional trips to bring up equipment that you would not 

realize you needed if you had not been to the site before.

We also found out the hard way that the platoon needs 

a little time between long missions—generally anything 

longer than 10 days. The unit needs maintenance time 

for any of the equipment that malfunctioned during the 

previous mission and to prepare and resource the equipment 

set for the next mission. Also, it will keep morale higher 

if the Soldiers have time to recover from long days on the 

worksite and enjoy whatever local amenities are available. 

It is important to be aware of the effects that long back-toback missions can have on Soldiers, especially if they are 

pushed hard to complete those missions by a certain date. 

Finishing projects early did not lengthen our time between 

missions because there was always another project waiting. 

Leaders should give Soldiers days off while on the project, 

because that is one of the few times they can control their 

own schedule.

Between missions, it is vitally important to keep the 

equipment running properly in case it is needed for the next 

mission. This is also the time to accomplish all the different 

services, annual and semiannual, before the next mission 

starts. Make friends with the Soldiers in the maintenance 

section. If they want to help you, a lot can be accomplished 

in a short amount of time. For any mission that requires 

a lot of equipment, it is also important to take mechanics; 

repair parts; and petroleum, oil, and lubricants. Equipment 

breaks down, and most forward operating bases (FOBs) do 

not have mechanics who know how to work on engineer 

equipment or have parts for it.

No matter what the mission is, don’t forget about drainage. It does rain in Iraq, and the water does not infiltrate 

the ground as it does in most places in the world, sitting 

instead on top of the ground for days at a time. The finished 

By First Lieutenant Blake R. Hawkins
50 Engineer May-August 2009

project may look good when it is complete in the dry season, 

but may end up underwater when it rains. If available, use 

surveyors to ensure that the water is draining away from 

the project. If surveyors are not available, do the best you 

can with a trained eye.

Train younger Soldiers on as many pieces of equipment 

as possible on each project. This will affect progress, but it 

is a good opportunity to cross-train operators on different 

machinery. Most of them will be noncommissioned officers 

on their next deployment, and this is the time to get them 

the training and proficiency they need for promotion. Before 

the mission starts (and before the reconnaissance, if possible), make sure to get a clearly defined scope of work. Customers frequently asked for additional work once a project 

was started. If the requested job was small, and we were capable of doing it with our equipment, we would oblige them. 

But remember that your battalion assigned specific work 

and that there are more missions waiting after completion 

of the current job. 

Following are lessons learned from specific missions:

In building an earthen road to Class B standards, 

we learned that the most important factor is the availability and application of water. Without water, there

is no compaction and the road will not hold up. If there

is not a large, renewable water source nearby, it might

be necessary to locate and convoy to one. This might 

not be practical and will inevitably draw out

your timeline. Technically, this is a “make-orbreak” issue for the project. During the middle of 

winter, working 24 hours a day, we used approximately 30,000 gallons of water a day for a month. We

estimated that to construct the same road in the middle of the summer, with its heat and evaporation,

would take approximately 60,000 gallons a day. Also,

for best results, surveyors should be on-site the day

the project starts and for as many additional days

as possible. Ensure that the surveyors do not emplace

center-line grade stakes until near the end of the 

project. It is difficult for the Soldiers to operate big 

equipment around the stakes, and in the end, the 

stakes are knocked out anyway. 

Having a mechanic on-site was important, because he 

constantly worked to keep the mission on schedule. He

fixed the water distributor four or five times and used

parts from one scraper to keep another working. During the project, several pieces of equipment broke

down. Extra parts and equipment should be on standby, ready to push out to the jobsite. After completing

■

■

the project, ensure that the customer understands

that no matter how well-built the road is, it will need

maintenance. Rain and high-speed traffic wear the

road surface down quickly.

Reconnaissance is paramount for rapid crater repair

(RCR) missions. Pictures and dimensions reported by

the operational environment owner may fail to convey the true scope of the work required. If cement is

used for an RCR mission, it should contain accelerant. Otherwise, Soldiers may have to wait at each

hole for hours while cement sets.

Missions that require spending weeks in a desolate

location can be improved by taking along some items

that will improve the quality of life. We spent approximately 45 days in the blistering heat of an Iraqi summer, living in the middle of an agricultural field while

we built a joint combat outpost. One of the biggest

morale boosters the unit had was a refrigerator van

that let us keep ice on hand. Cold drinks and ice are

invaluable in this type of environment and made life

much more bearable. 

Try to get some unified ground rations express 

(UGRE) before starting the mission. UGRE are selfheating, three-course meals that serve 12 Soldiers 

or more and are much tastier than meals, ready-toeat. Packages of chips, fruit juice, Gatorade®, and other snack items from the dining facility help to break

the monotony of eating the same food day after day. 

Bring along anything that can provide shade, since 

the sun will drain everyone’s energy, and Soldiers will

welcome a cooler place out of the sun to rest. Of 

course, working at night when possible allows Soldiers to work longer and reduces the threat of heat

injury.

Firsthand knowledge of the worksite before a mission 

begins, and equipment maintenance when the mission is 

complete, were two of the major lessons learned during 

the 561st Engineer Company’s deployment. The value of 

training and simple morale boosters during the mission 

was another valuable lesson learned. Taking proper care 

of Soldiers and their equipment is crucial to a successful 

deployment.

First Lieutenant Hawkins serves with the 561st Engineer 

Company, 84th Engineer Battalion, which recently returned 

to Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, from Operation Iraqi Freedom. He holds a bachelor’s in environmental engineering.

■

■

■

■

“One of the most important things we learned—

through good and bad experiences—is the

importance of a reconnaissance.”
May-August 2009 Engineer 51

I

n mid-February 2009, the Soldiers of the 4th Engineer 

Battalion (Combat Effects), deployed from Fort Carson, 

Colorado, to Baghdad, Iraq, to provide route clearance 

support for Multinational Division–Baghdad. The battalion, operating from Camp Liberty, received orders within 

weeks of its arrival to move its efforts to southern Afghanistan to support the influx of U.S. forces heading to the region. As the Soldiers packed up their equipment, leaders at 

all levels shifted their focus from conducting operations in 

the highly congested urban streets of Baghdad to the wideopen desert and mountain passes of Afghanistan. Despite 

the challenges and the new tactics associated with conducting rural route clearance, the Soldiers of the 4th remained 

optimistic.

In Kandahar, while waiting for the arrival of its 

route clearance equipment, the battalion was asked to 

help construct a 150-foot Mabey-Johnson logistic support bridge (LSB) on an overpass that had been damaged by an improvised explosive device (IED). The bridge 

was located on Highway 1—known as Ring Road—2,100

kilometers of almost completely paved road that encircles 

Afghanistan and links the roads that lead to its international borders. Because of this, mobility along this road is 

critical for locals as well as coalition forces. The battalion 

commander decided to dedicate the Soldiers of the 576th 

Engineer Company (Mobility Augmentation) to the task.

The advantage of the Mabey-Johnson LSB over the 

more widely known Bailey bridge is its strong steel deck 

and transom system. The Mabey-Johnson LSB requires 

far less material to provide a much higher military load 

class (MLC). Also, because the overpass was still intact, a crane could be used to construct the entire bridge, 

as opposed to building a temporary launching nose and 

rollers and using the cantilever system, a common construction technique for both the Bailey bridge and the 

Mabey-Johnson LSB.

The 576th Engineer Company primarily consists of 

combat engineers who have little experience with military 

bridging beyond the small block of instruction taught in advanced individual training. Thus, the company relied on the 

expertise of a British Army captain and a Canadian Army 

warrant officer to guide the construction effort. The company was split into two elements: security and construction. 

The security platoon escorted vehicles and equipment 161 

kilometers to the site, then provided a security cordon for 

the construction platoon. It also coordinated outer security 

cordons set by other coalition forces to control traffic. The 

construction platoon began work at Kandahar Airfield on

5 May, nine days before leaving for the site. The Soldiers 

were assisted by two coalition crane operators using a 

German Army crane to reinforce the frame sections of the 

bridge in order to support the designed MLC and to load the 

trucks efficiently to reduce construction time.

By First Lieutenant Christopher A. Selleck
52 Engineer May-August 2009

The security platoon departed Kandahar Airfield for the 

bridge on the morning of 14 May. Movement was halted by 

a mechanical malfunction of the crane, which ended up delaying construction for two days. When the crane arrived 

at the site on a flatbed trailer, the inner cordon was established and the area was cleared using mine roller equipment and a specialized search dog from the 94th Engineer 

Detachment, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. To maintain an 

aggressive posture on the site while waiting for the crane to 

be fixed, the company conducted dismounted patrols of the 

area. Almost daily enemy IED activity to the west heightened the Soldiers’ state of alertness. 

On 17 May, a new crane arrived, and the original 

crane was repaired. This allowed construction to move at 

a pace quicker than anticipated. The heaviest and most 

critical piece of the bridge—the near-shore ground beam—

was placed first. At nearly 

5 tons, it had to be precisely 

placed and centered or the entire bridge would veer off in the 

wrong direction. Once it was 

placed, the tedious process of 

emplacing 15 bays consisting 

of panels, transoms, bracing, 

and decks began. When the 

new bridging reached the middle of the damaged overpass, 

construction from both sides 

was possible. While bays were 

being added from the far shore, 

the crane on the near shore 

helped place decking and the 

near-shore ramp.

The Soldiers of the 576th 

worked in shifts around 

the clock with only a short 

rest period in order to 

reduce time on-site. Minor 

problems called for creative 

solutions, but no problems 

arose that halted construction 

for any length of time. For example, upon completion of the 

ninth frame, the construction 

platoon discovered that the 

bridge was 7 inches off center. 

Instead of removing frames to 

correct the problem, the platoon (with help from the crane 

and several Soldiers from 

the security platoon) used 

manpower to slowly move 

the bridge back on center. 

The platoon also employed 

building techniques using 

vehicle jacks, ratchet straps, 

and tanker bars to help get 

the bridge pieces assembled.

The Soldiers completed the bridge on 19 May, with a total construction time of approximately 50 hours. The security and construction platoons, along with the route clearance 

patrol, moved from the bridge site back to their forward 

operating base as night was approaching. The next morning, the company began to make its way back to Kandahar. 

With minimal training, the Soldiers of the 576th Engineer 

Company dramatically improved mobility and freedom of 

maneuver along Highway 1, aiding the people of Afghanistan and coalition forces. 

First Lieutenant Selleck is the operations officer for the 

576th Engineer Company (Mobility Augmentation), 4th Engineer Battalion. Previously, he was a platoon leader with 

the 576th Engineer Company. He is a graduate of the United 

States Military Academy at West Point, New York.

Afghan workers unload a truck under the eyes of American Soldiers.
May-August 2009 Engineer 53

“Modern man’s capacity for destruction is quixotic evidence of humanity’s capacity for reconstruction. The powerful technological agents we have unleashed against the 

environment include many of the agents we require for its 

reconstruction.” 

–George F. Will

On 14 February 2008, the United States Army’s 

XVIII Airborne Corps assumed command of Multinational Corps–Iraq (MNC–I) from III Corps. 

Operation Iraqi Freedom was at a critical turning point, 

nearing the end of the “surge” of more than 25,000 troops. 

From April to August 2008, the five surge brigade combat teams (BCTs) departed the Iraqi theater of operations. 

With improved security and a refined approach to counterinsurgency operations, the new operational environment 

was characterized by vast economic growth opportunities 

and an explosive demand for essential services. Against 

this backdrop, MNC–I focused on deliberate planning and 

execution of its third line of operation (LOO)—building 

civil capacity.

The holistic approach to developing civil capacity involved coordinating and synchronizing the capacitybuilding efforts of multiple stakeholders, including coalition forces, provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs); 

international organizations; and most important, local, 

provincial, and national Iraqi government agencies. This 

article documents MNC–I’s processes, best practices, and 

lessons learned in coordinating the joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational initiatives necessary to

successfully transition civil capacity development to a 

capable Iraqi government with support from PRTs and

international organizations. 

Evolution of Nonlethal Effects

“An organization’s ability to learn, and translate that 

learning into action rapidly, is the ultimate competitive advantage.”

–Jack Welch

From 2007 to 2008, improved security significantly increased public expectations for government-provided services. In May 2008, XVIII Airborne Corps envisioned a conceptual framework for civil capacity development 

and transition in Iraq as depicted in Figure 1. XVIII Airborne 

Corps and its subordinate units played a key role in providing minimum essential services such as sewer, water, electricity, trash disposal, refined fuel products, and health care 

to the Iraqi population while the Iraqi government steadily 

developed its own capability, enabled by U.S. government 

agencies, international organizations, and nongovernmental

organizations (NGOs). 

By Colonel Scott F. “Rock” Donahue and Major Daniel L. Higgins

Figure 1

Civil Capacity Transition Framework Envisioned in May 2008
 54 Engineer May-August 2009

MNC–I was made acutely aware of this shift on 26 June 

2008, when a Multinational Force–West (MNF–W) weekly 

situation report articulated the need for a comprehensive, 

fully integrated approach to achieve lethal and nonlethal 

effects in Anbar Province. The approach would require 

tactical- to strategic-level key leader engagement with the 

Iraqi government. Coordination and planning for nonlethal 

effects at this stage of the campaign were primarily synchronized by the soft-power joint planning team (JPT) led 

by MNC–I’s engineer staff section (C7) and consisting of elements from the following organizations:

Future operations (FUOPS [C35]) 

C7 Infrastructure Protection and Reconstruction

section

Staff Judge Advocate (SJA)

Civil affairs (C9), Economics and Governance

section

MNC–I surgeon 

Others

The June MNF–W situation report reinforced the need for 

an MNC–I civil capacity champion—a corps-level lead—

to provide a broader, deeper approach to integrating civil 

capacity with lethal operations aimed at achieving sustainable security and developing Iraqi Security Force (ISF) 

capability.

On 1 July 2008, the soft-power JPT convened to address 

the issues raised by MNF–W. Concurrently, MNC–I senior 

leaders and staff principals collaborated to formalize a more 

robust and enduring approach to synchronizing civil capacity initiatives. Complexity frustrated this process as the 

civil capacity LOO consisted of four prioritized objectives 

involving three primary staff sections: 

Transparent and accountable governance (C9)

Sustainable economic development (C9)

Provision of essential services (C7)

Firmly established rule of law (SJA)

The operational objective of the civil capacity LOO focused 

on effectively executing tasks required by these four discreet objectives to reinforce security gains and legitimize 

the Iraqi government. 

July 2008 involved several planning iterations to integrate and synchronize civil capacity within the XVIII Airborne Corps planning cycle, since the best approach had yet 

to be determined. This process ran parallel with the softpower JPT mission analysis and course of action (COA) 

development for Anbar civil capacity integration (CCI). To 

adequately plan for robust Anbar CCI, the soft-power JPT 

expanded to a larger, more permanent group called the

Civil Capacity Integration Team (CCIT), led by the director 

of MNC–I C7. The group received planning guidance and direct oversight from the MNC–I deputy commanding general 

(DCG) and the DCG for Coalition and Infrastructure. Tasks 

for the CCIT were— 

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Exploit security gains through the civil capacity LOO.

Synchronize nonlethal enablers to complement lethal

operations.

Conduct nonlethal targeting by incorporating nonlethal enablers in support of operational priorities.

Sensing a need for a more permanent staff section principally dedicated to the nonlethal portion of the campaign, 

the MNC–I chief of staff and the operations (C3) section 

formed a nondoctrinal staff section called C3 Nonkinetic 

(nonlethal) FUOPS, or C35 NK. This emerging organization was manned by permanently assigned officers from 

MNC–I coordinating and special staff sections and major 

subordinate commands already involved in civil capacity 

development. These were primarily the C9, C7, SJA, and 

304th Civil Affairs Brigade. The C35 NK mission was to 

coordinate and synchronize MNC–I’s nonlethal enablers according to the priorities of the MNC–I commander to—

Exploit security gains.

Deny resurgence of violent extremists.

Build civil capacity.

Advance sustainable security in Iraq.

C35 NK was formally established on 28 July 2008 and 

was staffed as shown in Figure 2, page 54. With a clear mission and an increasingly important LOO to synchronize and 

integrate, C35 NK set out to facilitate civil capacity planning in support of MNC–I’s named operations.

Making the Civil Capacity Mission

Operational

“I must study politics and war that my sons may have the 

liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.” 

–John Adams

Designed to plan nonlethal operations in parallel 

with the XVIII Airborne Corps FUOPS section, 

C35 NK spent its first few months establishing a 

niche within the existing corps staff framework and operational battle rhythm. Immediate effort went into developing 

civil-military operations plans for execution during postlethal operations in the northern Tigris and Diyala River 

Valleys in support of Operation Glad Tidings of Benevolence (GTOB). August through October 2008 was a challenging period as C35 NK endured the uncertainty of organizational change. Planning efforts for the northern Tigris 

and Diyala River Valleys failed to gain widespread acceptance at the division level, where subordinate commanders 

and staff were skeptical of infusing higher-level follow-on 

nonlethal direct support into previously planned division 

operations. Nevertheless, MNC–I and its subordinate commands steadily made nonlethal gains, although C35 NK’s 

role was somewhat limited. Eventually, C35 NK’s functions 

transformed from purely planning to synchronizing efforts 

in support of the civil capacity LOO.

■

■

■

■

■

■

■
In its refined role, C35 NK provided responsive staff 

support to MNC–I senior leadership, coordination and synchronization to MNC–I primary staff sections responsible 

for lethal operations, and coordinating support to interagency partners. Integration of nonlethal effects during and 

after lethal operations was fundamental to the success of 

MNC–I’s counterinsurgency operations. This was particularly true as the ISF increasingly took the lead in lethal 

operations, although they hadn’t thoroughly developed 

nonlethal aspects to complement these operations. Civil 

capacity projects, through the Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP) and the Iraqi Commanders Emergency Response Program (I-CERP), achieved success in 

Diyala Province during Operation GTOB. These programs 

improved the delivery of essential services and changed 

the perspective of Iraqi citizens about the top problems in

their neighborhoods.

Operation GTOB was the first major combined operation collaboratively developed by MNC–I and Iraqi Ground 

Force Command planners. The operation revealed the increased demand for essential services once security was established. It also provided a number of nonlethal lessons 

learned for inclusion in future operations to achieve sustainable security.

Refining for Success: Synchronizing Civil

Capacity Stakeholders and Partners

“Plans are only good intentions unless they immediately 

degenerate into hard work.”

 – Peter Drucker

As the Iraq campaign continued to unfold during the summer and fall of 2008, MNC–I start.ed planning a new operations order (OPORD) to accommodate the rapidly changing operating environment. The 

civil capacity working group assembled in late August and 

began mission analysis. Several key factors influenced 

the planning process for the civil capacity LOO. The most

compelling change was the expiration of United Nations 

Security Council Resolution 1754 on 31 December 2008. 

The new MNC–I OPORD would require coalition forces 

to work by, with, and through ISF and a sovereign Iraqi 

government under an emerging yet undefined security 

arrangement. 

Securing the Iraqi population and training and equipping the ISF remained MNC–I’s priority, but building civil 

capacity was steadily increasing in importance. Demand for 

services continued as security gains allowed displaced persons to return to their homes. Consequently, demand for 

essential services such as electricity and potable water was 

outpacing the growing supply. Ultimately, the director of 

MNC–I C7 assumed ownership of the civil capacity LOO 

for the development of MNC–I OPORD 09-01. He directed 

his deputy director for operations, plans, and logistics to 

lead the civil capacity JPT. The team quickly discovered 

that there was no standard definition of “civil capacity.” 

An exhaustive search of Army field manuals (FMs), joint 

publications, and numerous references confirmed this assessment. Consolidating inputs from all of these sources, 

the team eventually developed a definition that the MNC–I 

commander ultimately approved: 

Transparent and accountable Iraqi provincial and local 

governments providing essential services to their citizens, 

and characterized by a firmly established rule of law and 

sustainable, growing economy.

That definition was derived from the—

Joint campaign plan.

Strategic framework.

Draft unified common plan.

FM 3-24, Counterinsurgency.

FM 3-07, Stability Operations.

■

■

■

■

■

May-August 2009 Engineer 55

Figure 2

Organizational Structure of MNC-I’s C35 NK Staff Section 

Established in Late July 2008
The experienced team rapidly assimilated lessons 

learned during previous planning efforts which helped 

shape the mission analysis and COA development for 

MNC–I OPORD 09-01. Throughout September and 

October 2008, the JPT met three times per week to develop the MNC–I civil capacity strategy. The planning effort 

also included key partners from the Office of Provincial 

Affairs (OPA) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). These team members provided invaluable insight from the Department of State 

(DOS) perspective, assuring DOS and PRT objectives were

fully integrated.

The MNC–I commander approved the recommended COA for the civil capacity LOO on 8 November 2008. 

The LOO consisted of four objectives linked to, and nested with, OPA’s five lines of action and Multinational 

Force–Iraq’s (MNF–I’s) five LOOs in the joint campaign plan. 

These objectives were similar to MNC–I’s OPORD 08-02 

objectives but were refined to reflect two key factors: 

The DOS would be the supported agency for civil 

capacity development in Iraq.

Coalition force capacity-building efforts would focus

on cementing the security gains made to date. 

■

■

56 Engineer May-August 2009

Figure 3

MNC–I Civil Capacity Synchronization Board

Legend:

Bde 

C5 

C8 

C9 

C&I 

CA 

CETI 

CG 

Dep

EN

GOI

GRD

IAG Iraq Assistance Group

ITAO	 Iraq Transition Assistance Office

JIATF joint interagency task force

JCC–I Joint Contracting Command–Iraq

LNO	 liaison officer

MED medical

MND/F Multinational Division/Force

OGA other government agencies

OPA	 Office of Provincial Affairs

POLAD political advisor

USM–I United States Mission–Iraq

brigade

plans

resource management

civil affairs

coalition and infrastructure

civil affairs

Coordinator for Economic Transition in Iraq

commanding general

deputy

engineer

government of Iraq

Gulf Region Division, United States Army Corps of Engineers
Concurrent with MNC–I OPORD 09-01 planning, the 

MNC–I civil capacity LOO senior leadership introduced a 

new idea for a synchronization forum, which became known 

as the Civil Capacity Synchronization Board (CCSB), 

chaired by the MNC–I DCG and facilitated by the MNC–I 

DCG for Coalition and Infrastructure. The intent was to 

augment the existing corps planning framework and support the C7 civil capacity LOO owner by providing general 

officer guidance and a single forum for all stakeholders to 

present initiatives in support of the multinational divisions (MNDs). The MNC–I commanding general approved 

the concept and the CCSB convened for the first time on 4 

November 2008. The forum immediately proved invaluable 

in providing guidance for executing MNC–I’s civil capacity 

LOO, as well as ensuring the coordination and synchronization of DOS partners. The CCSB ultimately evolved into the 

premier venue for MNC–I civil capacity integration with 

major subordinate commands, the United States embassy, 

MNF-I, OPA, and international organizations such as the 

United Nations Assistance Mission–Iraq. Figure 3 depicts 

the organizational structure of the CCSB and lists the participating stakeholders. 

The final coordination mechanism to codify civil capacity 

development initiatives was formalizing the relationship 

at the operational level between OPA and MNC–I. At the 

strategic level, MNF–I was guided by the joint campaign 

plan and strategic framework agreement with the U.S. embassy. The strategic framework agreement also established 

a coordinator for economic transition in Iraq and directed 

the development of unified common plans at the MNC–I 

and MND levels. At the tactical level, MNDs and BCTs developed joint campaign plans with their paired PRTs, but 

no formal operational-level arrangement existed between 

MNC–I and OPA. 

In late November 2008, a new JPT formed with OPA to 

draft a unified common plan amenable to both organizations 

and to formalize the support MNC–I would provide OPA as 

lead U.S. government agency for civil capacity development 

in Iraq. It also defined the mechanisms to coordinate planning and to eliminate conflicts in the employment of U.S. 

resources. Ultimately, the objective was to provide unity 

of effort across DOS and DOD entities at the operational 

level. Furthermore, the unified common plan sought to 

provide a civil capacity common operating picture, shared 

expectations, synchronized guidance, and prioritized U.S. 

resources. It also refined the process for subordinate unit 

plans—MNDs/PRTs and battlefield owners/embedded 

PRTs—by defining a new provincial unified common plan 

framework and coordinating guidance. The plans generated 

by the PRTs as part of this process were coordinated and 

synchronized across the theater of operations by DOS and 

DOD elements alike. 

May-August 2009 Engineer 57

Civil Capacity Handover to I Corps

“Our job is not to build it for them; our job is to help them 

build the capacity so that they can use their own substantial 

resources to do things for themselves.” 

–Ambassador Joseph Saloom 

I

n the final analysis, MNC–I’s civil capacity-building 

efforts were remarkably successful. Its successful management of the postsurge security environment enabled 

the subsequent transition to Iraqi-led security operations as 

the ISF continued to grow in experience and capability. As 

of April 2009, attacks and casualties were down to 2003 preinsurgency levels. The ability of Al Qaeda in Iraq to conduct 

sustained operations was severely degraded. The improved 

security also enabled MNC–I to focus on stability operations and capacity-building throughout most of the theater 

of operations. The provincial elections held on 31 January 

2009 occurred under Iraqi control without incident, and the 

process to seat the new provincial governments proceeded 

as planned. 

A closer evaluation of MNC–I’s civil capacity objectives confirms this assessment. With respect to improved 

governance, the successful provincial elections indicated 

the significant strides made by the Iraqis. Notwithstanding friction points such as Arab-Kurd tensions in the north 

and the proposed Iraq hydrocarbon law, results to date are 

noteworthy. Significant improvements in providing essential services during the corps’s tenure, particularly in the 

critically important electrical sector, were also made. As of 

April 2009, electrical generation was at the highest point in 

Iraq’s history, greater than 125,000 megawatt hours, and 

there are plans to add an additional 20 percent to the grid 

by the end of 2010.

Other essential services improved as well, and with PRT 

and coalition support will transition to capable Iraqi agencies. The rule of law continues to improve throughout Iraq, 

particularly in judicial security, detention operations, and 

the investigative capacity to support criminal prosecutions. 

Additional effort is required to reduce cultural tolerance 

for corruption, reform business laws, and increase transparency, but Iraqi leadership has expressed a willingness 

to do all three. Economic activity continues to expand in 

a number of sectors other than petroleum, which is critical for a broader Iraqi economy. The hospitality and service 

industries show positive signs in areas supporting religious 

tourism, and foreign direct investment to improve oil, gas, 

and electrical sectors appears imminent with a relatively 

low global price for oil. In summary, from the tactical to 

strategic levels, MNC–I’s full spectrum civil capacity influence set positive conditions for handover to I Corps in April 

2009, and for continued civil capacity development as U.S. 

forces withdraw by the end of 2011.

The primary tools used to facilitate civil capacity initiatives at the tactical level were the CERP and the Iraqi-funded version, I-CERP. These programs facilitated the civil capacity building projects that led to the success previously

(continued on page 59)

“MNC–I focused on deliberate planning and execution of its third line of 

operation—building civil capacity.”
58 Engineer May-August 2009

Soldiers Run to Remember Fallen Hero

By Sergeant Rebekah Malone

At daybreak on a warm desert morning in 

Baghdad, nearly 1,000 Soldiers joined to-

.gether to remember one of their own in 

a moving tribute. On 5 April 2009, six years after 

Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith of Tampa, 

Florida, lost his life defending more than 100 troops, 

Soldiers of the 46th Engineer Battalion (Combat) 

(Heavy), 225th Engineer Brigade, held a run in 

honor of his memory.

The run’s distance—11.46 kilometers—stood as 

a tribute to Smith’s unit and comrades. The actual 

battle site served as the starting and ending point 

for the racers. Casually listening, one could not help 

overhearing Soldiers use a powerful word to describe 

their comrade: hero. 

A first sergeant who met Smith in 2000 when 

they served as platoon sergeants of Alpha and Bravo 

Companies, 11th Engineer Battalion, said that he 

was impressed by the personal interest Smith took 

in each of his Soldiers, as evidenced by how all of 

them had only great things to say about him when he was 

a platoon sergeant. Specifically, they respected the way 

he took care to sit down with them and talk to them on a 

personal basis as well as a professional one.

The watchtower, riddled with bullet holes, is a haunting reminder 

of the battle that took the platoon sergeant’s life. 

Photo by Sergeant Rebekah Malone

Photo by Staff Sergeant Bradley West

His fellow platoon sergeant and friend explained that 

Sergeant First Class Smith lived the Army Values daily and 

could be described as “an awesome fellow noncommissioned 

officer” who went out of his way to take care of his Soldiers 
May-August 2009 Engineer 59

A participant of the Sergeant First Class Paul 

Ray Smith Memorial Run wears a shirt that 

displays the photo of the fallen hero.

Photo by Sergeant Rebekah Malone

on and off duty. His friend arrived at the 4 April 2003 

battle after Smith had been mortally wounded, to assist in 

securing the area. Smith had manned a .50-caliber machine 

gun atop a damaged armored personnel carrier after the 

gunner was wounded, effectively killing 25–50 enemy 

combatants of the estimated 100 attacking the courtyard by 

the highway between Baghdad International Airport and 

Baghdad itself.

Sergeant First Class Smith’s actions deescalated the 

attack and saved reportedly up to 100 Soldiers. What 

remains are the bullet holes in the watchtower and the 

memory of a Soldier who stood for other Soldiers, including 

the more than 4,200 servicemembers who have died during 

Operation Iraqi Freedom. Smith’s fellow platoon sergeant 

and friend was amazed after five years at how much this 

area had changed with the buildup of troops; he wanted to 

find the area where the engagement took place and see if 

anyone had done a memorial. He discovered that there was 

nothing there. Until now . . . .

On the sixth anniversary of his death and in honor of 

the fallen hero, Soldiers placed a memorial marker on the 

concrete wall—riddled with bullet holes—which he had 

defended during the fight. It is a fitting tribute for Sergeant 

First Class Paul Ray Smith for what he did in this place for 

his country and its warriors.

Sergeant Malone, a member of the Louisiana National 

Guard’s 225th Engineer Brigade, is a unit public affairs 

representative in Iraq. A graduate of Pratt Community 

College, she will soon complete a Bachelor of Arts in Liberal 

Studies from Louisiana State University in Alexandria.

Note: On 4 April 2005, Sergeant First Class Paul Ray 

Smith was posthumously awarded the first Medal of Honor 

for actions in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was 

the 14th engineer to receive the military’s highest award.

described. Iraqi answers to polling questions about their

top local concerns revealed a sense of normalcy that improved greatly from February 2008 to February 2009. Employment, rather than security, was the most important issue by a wide margin. Improving a diversified economy and 

providing jobs will be critical tasks as Iraq moves forward 

in 2009 and beyond.

To successfully move forward, MNC–I will continue to 

build on civil capacity best practices and the following key 

lessons learned:

Ensure that nonlethal planning is fully integrated

with lethal operations.

Keep civil capacity projects small while security is

tenuous and gradually transition to larger programs

as conditions permit.

Ensure that interagency planning and coordination

are conducted from strategic to tactical levels.

Coordinate with interagency partners to develop and

maintain a civil capacity common operating picture.

Expect explosive demand for essential services as

soon as security is achieved. 

Prevent loss of momentum by ensuring a thorough 

civil capacity handover during and throughout

transitions.

 The final chapters in Operation Iraqi Freedom will be 

written over the next 24 months. Achieving sustainable security and transitioning the civil capacity mission to fully 

capable Iraqi government agencies will depend heavily on 

efforts to train Iraqi officials and continue building on the 

foundations laid in part by MNC–I during Operation Iraqi 

Freedom 07-09. Improving security is the catalyst for continued gains, and with the assistance of the U.S. embassy, coalition forces, international organizations, foreign corporations, 

and Iraqis helping Iraqis, Iraq will remain free and flourish 

as the liberated democratic nation we set out to create.

Colonel Donahue served as the XVIII Airborne Corps engineer and Director, MNC–I C7 from February 2008 through 

April 2009. He was responsible for coordinating, synchronizing, and executing full spectrum engineer support for coalition 

forces throughout the Iraqi Theater of Operations. He holds a 

bachelor’s in civil engineering from the Virginia Military Institute, a master’s in operations research from the Naval Postgraduate School, and a master’s in strategic studies from the United 

States Army War College. He is also a registered professional 

engineer in Virginia. 

Major Higgins, United States Army Reserve, is Deputy Commander, 733d Facility Engineer Detachment, based in Fort 

Leavenworth, Kansas, and served on the MNC–I C7 Infrastructure Protection and Reconstruction staff from September 2008 

through July 2009 during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was 

the lead corps planner for the “Provision of Essential Services” 

objective implemented on 1 January 2009 and a contributor to 

the unified common plan between MNC–I and OPA. He holds a 

bachelor’s in civil engineering from the United States Military 

Academy and a master’s from the Helzberg School of Management at Rockhurst University.

■

■

■

■

■

■

(“Civil Capacity,” continued from page 56)
60 Engineer May-August 2009

The Multinational Security Transition Command–

Iraq (MNSTC–I), a subordinate command of Multinational Force–Iraq (MNF–I), is responsible for 

the construction of facilities for Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) 

within the Ministry of Defense (MOD), Ministry of Interior 

(MOI), and Counter Terrorism Bureau (CTB). This includes 

facilities for the generation of forces, as well as permanent 

basing for operational units. Within MNSTC–I, the Joint 

Engineering Directorate (J7) is the primary directorate for 

planning, executing, and transferring engineer facilities 

missions in support of the ISF. The J7 coordinates vertically 

and horizontally with the various coalition staffs, the United 

States Air Force Center of Excellence for the Environment, 

the United States Army Corps of Engineers–Gulf Region 

Division (USACE–GRD), and its Iraqi counterparts within 

MOD, MOI, and CTB, to ensure a cradle-to-grave engineering process. The purpose of this article is to outline how the 

MNSTC–I J7 is currently structured to meet requirements, 

and how the organization is transforming to meet new

requirements for 2009.

Structure

The J7 is a joint staff consisting of officers and noncommissioned officers (NCOs) from each of the Services, as well as Department of Defense civilians and 

contractors. The sole function of the staff is civil engineering, and it does not focus on full spectrum engineering functions such as combat or geospatial. The J7 is organized into 

the following basic sections: 

MOD construction

MOI construction

Construction development cell (CDC)

The MOD and MOI sections derive requirements from 

the various stakeholders and assign program and project 

managers to each construction effort. For example, if the 

Coalition Army Advisor Transition Team (CAATT) defines 

a requirement for an Iraqi division training facility in central Iraq, then the J7 MOD section leader will assign a program manager and project engineer to the mission. 

The program manager helps CAATT define the scope of 

work and a rough order-of-magnitude cost estimate. The 

program manager also works with the CDC to prepare a 

more detailed estimate for the overall cost of the facilities 

requirement. The program manager and CDC also work 

with the contracting agency, usually Joint Contracting 

Command–Iraq or USACE–GRD, to award the case. Also, 

the J7 hosts the technical evaluation board to ensure that 

the bidding contractors meet the minimum criteria for the 

overall design and building of the project. Once the project is 

awarded, the J7 program manager interacts with all stakeholders to ensure that the project is meeting the statement 

of work criteria, the projected timeline, and the projected 

budget. Normally, the source of funding is ISF funding 

(ISFF), but there are ongoing projects funded through the 

Security Assistance Office’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) 

program for construction. Once the project is completed, 

■

■

■

By Major Jared L. Ware

Joint EngineerA Multinational Perspective

Photo by Captain James Reid
May-August 2009 Engineer 61

the J7 works with the MOD’s director general for infrastructure or the MOI’s director general for construction to 

transfer the completed property to the Iraqi government. 

The process is a total cradle-to-grave process that covers 

the joint, interagency, intergovernmental and multinational (JIIM) gamut.

Transformation

I

n 2008, the J7 executed more than 300 ISFF projects 

from within the MOD and MOI sections at an estimated cost of more than $1 billion. These projects ranged 

from United States Army shoot houses, United States Air 

Force dormitories, United States Navy seawalls, Iraqi police stations, and local facilities upgrades. However, the directorate recognized that the MNSTC–I mission, as well 

as the source of construction funding, was changing. This 

required the directorate to conduct an in-depth study of 

the new mission sets and transform its existing joint manning document. The result was an organization that kept 

the basic construction engineering capabilities but also focused on joint planning and base management. There are 

various operational planning teams within the MNSTC–I 

staff that support operational order development, joint 

campaign planning, and joint basing. The J7 recognized 

the importance of these teams and of “plugging in” early 

to the efforts, since most had specific engineering requirements above and beyond the expertise of staff planners in 

the other directorates. The J7 has now developed a small 

planning section assigned to conduct all planning functions, to include preaward construction planning. The section also manages the FMS construction mission, currently 

consisting of several projects valued at approximately $800 

million, plus potential projects valued at approximately 

$400 million.

Another change in the structure is the combination of the 

MOD and MOI sections into one execution section. As the 

source of funding transitions from coalition-funded ISFF to 

Iraqi-funded FMS, there are fewer program management 

and project management requirements on the horizon. 

Moreover, there is a growing requirement to improve the 

engineering competencies at the ministerial levels as the 

government of Iraq takes on its own engineering programs 

and projects. The execution section will continue to provide 

oversight of engineering projects, but take on an additional 

role as the “right-seat ride” lead as the section interacts 

with its Iraqi counterparts. Finally, the J7 is developing a 

base management section that focuses on project transfer 

and follow-on facilities engineering. In the past, ISF-funded 

projects were transferred to the government of Iraq, but 

little future sustainment funding was programmed within 

the MOD or MOI to provide maintenance and upkeep to the 

new facilities. The goal of the base management section is 

to develop processes to facilitate the transfer of facilities, 

as well as prepare Iraqi facility engineers to properly plan, 

program, budget, and execute the base management and facilities engineering missions for their respective facilities.

Recommendations

These recommendations are based solely on personal 

observations, and are focused primarily on the United States Army’s Engineer Regiment.

Education and Experience. Given the civil engineering nature of the J7 Engineering Directorate, it is advisable that all incoming personnel possess an engineering or 

hard science degree, preferably a master’s in an applicable 

discipline. Most of the stakeholders are degreed engineers, 

and it is difficult to hit the ground running in the assignment without an engineering background, to include an 

understanding of the facilities engineering and contracting 

processes. It is also advisable to have engineers attend the 

Joint Engineer Operations Course before an assignment

to MNSTC–I.

Capturing Credentials. A method should be established to capture and document engineering and technical 

credentials for officers and NCOs. Completing Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act facilities engineering 

courses, program management professional certification, 

or managing a multimillion dollar construction project are 

not formally documented within the human resources system, unless they are stated on a Soldier’s efficiency report. 

The proposed change could help track the development of 

technical skills required for progressive assignments within the Engineer Regiment.

Directorate Leadership. The past two directors and 

the incoming director are all from the Navy Civil Engineer 

Corps community. Over time, the procedures and processes 

seem to have changed from a truly joint engineering doctrine to one with a Naval Facilities Engineering Command 

flavor. This has future implications, since most of the MOD 

facilities are for the Iraqi army. In the future, the directorship should perhaps be rotated among the various services, 

preferably with senior officers who have previous joint engineering experience.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article was to provide an understanding of the MNSTC–I J7 Engineering Directorate, and explain how the structure is adapting to 

the changing operational environment within Iraq. As the 

mission changes from one primarily focused on construction 

engineering for MOD and MOI to one focused on preparing the Iraqis to conduct engineering missions within their 

own organizations, the MNSTC–I J7 Engineering Directorate stands ready to meet the future challenges of joint engineering within Iraq.

Major Ware is a joint plans officer and the program manager for foreign military sales construction, MNSTC–I J7 

Engineering Directorate, Phoenix Base, Iraq. He has served 

in a variety of combat, general, and geospatial engineering 

assignments in the continental United States and overseas. 

His e-mail address is <jared.ware@us.army.mil>.
62 Engineer May-August 2009

There are several organizations in the Army with 

specific environmental missions: regional environmental offices (REOs), the Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI), the Environmental Law 

Division, the United States Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM), the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the 

United States Army Engineer School (USAES), the United States Army Environmental Division (Department of

the Army’s Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation 

Management–Installation Services Environmental

[DAIM–ISE]), and the United States Army Environmental Command (USAEC). It’s important to understand the 

differences between each organization’s specific mission so 

that inquiries and requests for information can be properly 

directed to get expedient responses and assistance to ensure 

the health of Soldiers while also accomplishing the mission. 

(For the entire organizational structure of the Army’s environmental agencies, see chart, page 63.)

Organizations and Missions

REOs and AEPI 

The REOs and the AEPI fall under the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health. The Army’s Strategy for the Environment 

sets forth the triple bottom line of sustainability—mission, 

environment, and community. REOs work to reach this bottom line by opening lines of communication, coordinating 

efforts, and facilitating solutions to ensure the readiness of 

the Army and the well-being of people and the environment. 

REOs are regionally based teams focused on helping the 

Army and its installations rapidly respond to and resolve environmental issues that might adversely affect operations. 

They conduct important legislative and regulatory monitoring and outreach activities within their regions. They work 

with military leaders, legislators, and regulators to ensure 

that the military can conduct training and operations while

complying with environmental regulations. They coordinate regionwide environmental issues; review, analyze, 

and comment on proposed and existing state legislation 

and regulations; facilitate partnerships with states, tribes, 

and other federal agencies; communicate Army and Department of Defense (DOD) positions; share ideas and innovations; leverage regional, state, and local environmental 

management resources; and serve as Army and DOD experts for environmental regulatory and legislative issues in

their regions.

AEPI conducts studies of emerging and existing environmental issues that may significantly impact the Army, then 

helps develop proactive policies and strategies that affect 

the sustainment of Army installations and operations. This 

is a persistent process because environmental issues continually emerge as awareness and technology progress. AEPI’s responsibility is to inform the Army secretariat about 

environmental challenges and opportunities that affect the 

Army. Its initiatives help the Army sustain readiness, improve quality of life, strengthen community relationships, 

and reduce total costs of ownership by suggesting sound 

environmental investments for force transformation and 

installation sustainability. 

Environmental Law Division

The Environmental Law Division, as part of the United 

States Army Legal Services Agency, provides commanders 

and their staffs with accurate and proactive legal advice—

and representation when necessary—on all environmental 

compliance issues affecting the Army. 

USACHPPM

As part of the United States Army Medical Command, USACHPPM provides worldwide technical support for implementing preventive medicine, public 

health, health promotion and wellness services, and environmental health and environmental quality programs 

By Ms. Martha M. Miller and Ms. Laura Carney

Understanding the

Army Environmental Structure
May-August 2009 Engineer 63

for all aspects of the Army and the Army community. 

It anticipates and rapidly responds to operational needs 

and remains adaptable to a changing world environment. 

Its primary focus is to—

Prevent and control diseases and injuries of military 

significance.

Promote health and well-being in military

populations.

Anticipate, identify, assess, and control occupational

and environmental health hazards.

Control advanced and sustainment preventive medicine training.

Provide targeted health information. 

The USACHPPM team is key to the medical support of 

combat forces and the military managed-care system. It provides worldwide scientific expertise and services in clinical 

and field preventive medicine, environmental and occupational health, health promotion and wellness, epidemiology 

and disease surveillance, toxicology, and related laboratory 

■

■

■

■

■

sciences. It supports readiness by keeping Soldiers fit to 

fight, while promoting wellness among their families and 

the federal civilian workforce. USACHPPM supports all 

Soldiers and federal civilian employees, regardless of their 

branch of Service.

USACE

USACE provides vital public engineering services in 

peace and war to strengthen the nation’s security, energize the economy, and reduce risks of disasters. Its Military 

Programs Environmental Division manages, designs, and 

executes a full range of cleanup and protection activities; 

complies with federal, state, and local environmental laws 

and regulations; minimizes use of hazardous materials; and 

conserves natural and cultural resources. The division supports strategic integration such as Base Realignment and 

Closure, the Gulf Region integration and security assistance, military construction transformation, and stability 

and reconstruction operations. 

USACE has a civil works environmental mission to

ensure that all its projects, facilities, and associated
lands meet environmental standards. It supports military construction and demolition projects; provides environmental, real estate, international, and interagency 

services; and provides support for installations and contingency operations. 

The Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) 

comprises the following regional research facilities within 

USACE:

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, 

Mississippi

Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi

Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory, Vicksburg,

Mississippi

Information Technology Laboratory, Vicksburg,

Mississippi

Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, 

Champaign, Illinois

Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory,

Hanover, New Hampshire

Geospatial Research and Engineering Center (previously the Topographic Engineering Center), Alexandria, Virginia

These laboratories synergistically address research and 

development (R&D) in four major areas:

Military engineering

Geospatial research and engineering

Environmental quality for installations

Civil works or water resources 

ERDC is one of the most diverse engineering and scientific research organizations in the world. It conducts R&D 

in support of the Soldier, military installations, USACE 

civil works mission, other federal agencies, state and municipal authorities, and American industry. ERDC R&D focuses on five primary technical areas to support the Army 

and USACE: 

Warfighter support with geospatial information,

system development, operational support, force protection, and force projection and sustainment

Transformation, operation, and environmental issues of

installations

Environmental remediation and restoration, land

planning, stewardship and management, threatened

and endangered species, and cultural resources

Water resources and infrastructure, environmental 

issues, navigation, flood control, and storm damage

reduction

Information technology, informatics, geospatial technologies, computational services, and high-performance

computing applications

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Integrated teams of engineers and scientists within 

ERDC can address a wide range of scientific and technological issues. Some issues previously addressed are the effects 

of arctic temperatures, vehicle mobility in desert sands, the 

protection of wetlands, the pinpointing of exact locations of 

unexploded ordnance, the prediction of habitat ranges for 

endangered species, and most important, the protection of 

Soldiers in various conditions. 

USAES

Under the United States Army Training and Doctrine 

Command, the USAES commandant is one of the senior 

leaders within the Army environmental community, serving as the proponent for the development and integration 

of environmental considerations across the domains of 

military operations and doctrine, organization, training, 

materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF). With this mission, USAES developed the 

Army Environmental Integration Plan and formed the Directorate of Environmental Integration (DEI). 

The mission of DEI is to fully implement the Army Environmental Strategy and integrate the environmental perspective into the Army’s Future Force concept. To meet this 

goal, DEI—

Integrates environmental considerations and incorporates lessons learned into all appropriate Army

and joint publications and references.

Provides an organization of environmental subject

matter experts to support operational requirements.

Develops and provides training for military and civilian personnel.

Develops military and civilian leaders who understand their environmental responsibilities and incorporate environmental considerations into their operational planning and decisionmaking.

Instills an environmental ethic and situational 

awareness in Soldiers and civilians to support the 

Army environmental vision.

Enhances quality of life and community relations.

Ensures that environmental considerations are incorporated where support functions are provided to

the operational force.

The goal is to integrate environmental considerations 

in support of the Army’s mission while protecting the force 

and the environment by building a professionally competent force with the appropriate skills, knowledge, and environmental ethics.

DEI provides many environmental products, examples 

of which include—

Army correspondence course programs.

Training videos, graphic training aids, and training

support packages.

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

 64 Engineer May-August 2009
Doctrine products such as field manuals and training

circulars.

Environmental Baseline Survey and the Occupational

and Environmental Health Site Assessment Handbook.

Environmental, Safety, and Occupational Health 

Base Camp Handbook.

Online training catalog and courses.

Environmental Deployment Toolkit compact discs.

Joint environmental training.

Environmental management system training materials.

The organization also has mobile training teams that can 

provide predeployment environmental training when needed. DEI is actively involved with various Army and multiagency committees and work groups. 

DAIM–ISE and IMCOM

The Army Environmental Division (DAIM–ISE) and Installation Management Command (IMCOM) operate under 

the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management 

(ACSIM). ACSIM and its subordinate organizations focus on 

the concerns specific to military installations. DAIM–ISE is 

the principal advisor to the ACSIM regarding environmental programs. It develops strategic policies and establishes 

priorities, resources, strategy, and program guidance related to managing and resourcing all environmental programs. 

It also ensures that environmental program priorities and 

activities enable the Army mission. Its vision is to foster 

environmental stewardship and installation sustainability 

through integration of environmental values. 

DAIM–ISE develops and issues Army Environmental 

Program priorities so that subordinate elements have adequate authority to accomplish installation/activity missions. It has the responsibility for environmental program 

resource requirements, validation, and programming of 

resources into the program objective memorandum and 

establishment of resource levels to support the Army 

Environmental Program priorities. Coordination is conducted internally and with Army staff elements, the Secretary of the Army staff, Army commands, Army service 

component commands, direct reporting units, the Reserve 

Components, and field operators to ensure that environmental requirements are integrated into their programs. 

It participates in federal department-level meetings and 

workgroups led by the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

to represent service-level positions on issues affecting the 

Army’s mission. 

The development and visibility of environmental program issues are maintained through coordination with 

components and states. Program reviews for performance 

management are conducted according to established strategies and program priorities. DAIM–ISE prepares briefings, 

information papers, and reports for Army leadership and 

Congress and supports audits and Freedom of Information 

Act requests. 

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

USAEC

USAEC is directly subordinate to IMCOM in the Army 

environmental structure. Over the past 36 years, under 

various names and through evolving missions, USAEC 

has supported the Army’s expanding role as a world leader 

in environmental stewardship and responsibility. It integrates, coordinates, and oversees the implementation of the 

Army’s environmental programs for the Army staff. Armed 

with lessons from the past and the vision of a transforming 

Army, USAEC provides the knowledge, tools, and program 

development assistance that enable military readiness 

and sustainable military communities through training, 

operations, and acquisition, using sound environmental practices. 

The command provides a broad range of environmental products and services to Headquarters, Department 

of the Army, major commands, and commanders worldwide, including leadership, focus, direction, and innovative solutions to the Army’s future environmental challenges. USAEC has developed and sustains a team of 

environmental professionals dedicated and empowered to 

accomplish the mission through the support of military 

installations. 

Environmental Purpose

There are several different organizations within the 

Army with specific environmental missions. Each 

organization supports the Army mission, its strategy for the environment, and its installations worldwide; 

ensures compliance with environmental laws and regulations; and ensures the health and well-being of the Army’s 

Soldiers and their families through the use of sustainable 

practices and programs. 

Ms. Miller is an environmental protection specialist with 

the Directorate of Environmental Integration at the United 

States Army Engineer School at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Previously, she was the hazardous waste and underground storage tank program manager for the Illinois Army 

National Guard. She obtained professional credentials as a 

Certified Hazardous Materials Manager in 2005 and holds 

a bachelor’s from Monmouth College, Monmouth, Illinois. 

She has been a member of the Illinois Army National Guard 

for 23 years and is a sergeant first class with the Illinois 

Joint Force Headquarters.

Ms. Carney is an environmental protection specialist 

with the Directorate of Environmental Integration at the 

United States Army Engineer School at Fort Leonard Wood. 

Previously she was an environmental protection specialist at 

United States Army Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, where 

she served as program manager for the installation Environmental Management System, pollution prevention, recycling, hazardous waste minimization, and environmental 

reporting programs.

May-August 2009 Engineer 65
66 Engineer May-August 2009

The 5th Engineer Battalion received its deployment 

order for Operation Iraqi Freedom late in 2007 and 

deployed the following year. The battalion had recently transformed to the new modular structure, and its 

three mechanized companies became one sapper company 

and two mobility augmentation companies (MACs). Its 

projected mission in Iraq was route clearance, rapid crater 

repair, route sanitation, and culvert denial, so the battalion trained hard for those tasks. That training included a 

mission readiness exercise at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California. However, soon after deploying 

to Iraq, the battalion was involved in multiple construction 

projects across the areas of operation of two brigade combat 

teams (BCTs). Regardless of the type of engineer battalion 

or the missions its leaders expected to have, those BCTs 

needed immediate construction and technical support. 

Engineer Modularity

The concept of engineer modularity is that an engineer battalion can command and control, plan, integrate, and direct the execution of two to five engineer 

companies (sapper, mobility augmentation, horizontal, vertical, multirole bridge, or other specialty unit), depending 

on the mission and engineer requirements. The majority of 

engineer battalions that have deployed to Operation Iraqi 

Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom conducted operations across multiple engineer functions on an area basis. 

They have mostly performed combat and general engineering, but some also provided geospatial engineering. This arrangement offers many advantages over a single-function 

battalion that only conducts either combat engineering or 

general engineering missions. However, in order to capitalize on these advantages, the engineer battalion must organize and train correctly so it is able to conduct operations 

across all engineer functions. 

While in Iraq, the 5th Engineer Battalion commanded 

and controlled two sapper companies, two MACs, a combat 

support equipment (CSE) company, a horizontal engineer 

company, and a multirole bridge company (MRBC), as well 

as an Air Force utility detachment and a geospatial team. 

Like most previous combat engineer battalions in its position, the 5th could easily plan and execute the combat engineering tasks and was able to quickly execute geospatial 

tasks that supported all operations. The biggest challenge 

for the 5th, and many of the other battalions deployed, was 

construction management or tasks within the general engineering function. Unfortunately, 

the new engineer battalion organization (see Figure 1) is not built 

to effectively manage construction 

operations. 

Battalion Staff 

Organization

Proper organization of the 

engineer battalion staff is 

the first hurdle to conducting construction management. 

The 5th Engineer Battalion managed the construction effort for one 

horizontal engineer company, one 

CSE company, and an Air Force 

utilities detachment (the equivalent of 6 horizontal platoons,

2 vertical platoons, and a utility repair platoon). Additionally, 

By Major William C. Hannan

Can the Modular Engineer Battalion 

Headquarters Be Multifunctional?

5th Engineer Battalion Soldiers 

perform a culvert repair mission 

in Diyala Province, Iraq.
May-August 2009 Engineer 67

the battalion conducted quality assurance/quality control 

(QA/QC) inspections, performed the duties of a contracting 

officer technical representative, and assisted with technical scope-of-work reviews and project creation for BCT 

and provincial reconstruction team civil capacity projects. 

There was a tremendous need for technical planning, support, resourcing, and execution at the battalion level. The 

engineer battalion modified table of organization and equipment (MTOE) has construction noncommissioned officers 

(NCOs) with construction military occupational specialties 

(MOSs) throughout the staff structure (see Figure 2), but 

there is no construction cell to coordinate and synchronize efforts to ensure that the commander’s priorities are 

being met.

The battalion restructured just before deploying, based 

on the need for deliberate construction planning and execution. Figure 3, page 68, shows how the 5th reorganized for 

Operation Iraqi Freedom. This restructuring was essential 

in order to provide efficient, quality construction. Although 

most of the needed MOSs were within the battalion MTOE, 

Figure 1 

Construction MOS Positions

in Engineer Battalion

Figure 2

Shaded Section: FM 3-34, Figure B-7, Page B9

Engineer Battalion

05435G000
not having a dedicated construction management section 

(CMS) before deployment severely degraded construction 

management for the first six months of the deployment. 

Those six months were spent developing the battalion’s 

construction systems, acquiring needed equipment and 

software, and delineating duties and responsibilities. An 

important MOS not included in the battalion MTOE was 

a technical engineering specialist, or 21T. The battalion is 

authorized one senior technical engineering specialist in 

the plans section, but in order to conduct survey, design, 

soil testing, concrete testing, compaction testing, and other technical requirements, a battalion needs at least four 

Soldiers with that specialty. The 5th deployed with one excess NCO with the specialty and pulled two more Soldiers 

with that MOS up to the battalion CMS from an attached

company. 

Technical equipment is also missing from the engineer 

battalion MTOE. When creating the technical section in 

the CMS, the battalion procured soils and concrete testing 

and analysis equipment, global positioning system survey 

instruments, electric density gauges, AutoCAD®, Theater 

Construction Management System (TCMS), and Microsoft® 

Project software. See Figure 4 for a list of the minimum 

equipment needed for a technical section at the battalion 

level. Under modularity, this gap could be fixed by attaching a survey and design team at an allocation of one team 

per three construction companies, but the reality is that 

engineer battalions often do not get this asset. Some engineer battalions with “combat heavy” roots had a survey 

and design team even if the battalion had fewer than three 

construction companies. While engineer brigades have a 

survey and design section on their MTOE, battalions cannot count on the brigade’s team to support the battalion’s 

requirements. Additionally, engineer battalions are often 

directly attached to divisions and need an internal capability for survey, design, and testing. Without the technical section and/or equipment, the battalion is unable to 

properly design projects or conduct QA/QC inspections. It 

is difficult for a battalion to enforce construction standards 

when it does not have the capability to test or build to a

defined standard.

Predeployment Training

The second concern for the engineer battalion is training construction management and general engineering tasks 

before deployment. Without a dedicated construction officer and CMS on the MTOE, units 

often overlook the need to train these tasks 

when not deployed. Units normally do not assign a construction officer unless they have 

roots as a combat heavy or construction effects 

battalion or have modular construction units 

attached in garrison. Additionally, construction NCOs on staff are often assigned as operations, schools, or training NCOs. With the 

loss of technical capability in the Engineer 

Construction Section Organization

Figure 3

68 Engineer May-August 2009

Technical Section Required Equipment

Figure 4
Regiment, it is even more important now to continue to develop technical skills in officers and NCOs. 

Once the first obstacle is cleared and the battalion maintains a permanent CMS, the next step is to conduct individual and collective training. The construction officer needs 

to be a degreed engineer with skills in contracting, project 

management, survey and design management, writing technical scopes of work and construction directives, QA/QC, 

Microsoft Project, and TCMS. The NCOs in the CMS need 

similar skills, but specifically as they apply to their MOS or 

duty position. Collective training is more difficult for several reasons. First, engineer battalions are not multifunctional before they deploy, with a few exceptions such as the 

54th Engineer Battalion in Germany. Most either have allmodular combat units, such as sapper or MAC companies, 

or modular vertical or horizontal construction companies. 

This causes weaknesses in both types of engineer battalions, although those with modular construction companies 

in garrison can usually transition easier into a multifunctional battalion. The engineer battalion without modular 

construction companies in garrison normally is not organized or trained to manage construction and has a much 

steeper learning curve when transitioning to a multifunctional battalion. 

One potential solution to the issue would be to organize battalions in garrison as multifunctional battalions. When possible, engineer brigades should organize 

battalions with both modular combat and construction 

companies. This will enable the engineer battalion to train 

its staff across all engineer functions. For example, the 

94th Engineer Battalion—previously a combat heavy unit 

but now composed entirely of modular construction companies—and the 5th Engineer Battalion—previously a corps 

mechanized unit but now comprising all modular combat 

companies—are both located at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, under the 4th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade. In 

order to enable the staffs of the 94th and 5th Engineer 

Battalions to train across all engineer functions, they 

could each give one organic company to the other battalion. If that was not feasible, they could attach companies 

to the other battalion for specific training events or construction projects. 

Another issue affecting collective training is the ability 

to plan, develop, resource, and execute construction projects 

in garrison similar to ones that will be expected in a theater 

of operations. Every engineer battalion needs to work construction planning into its training plans, though it is often 

difficult because construction projects in garrison are difficult to resource and synchronize. The members of Air Force 

construction units are highly skilled in their specialties 

because they execute construction projects and continually 

work in their specialties while in garrison. For major training events such as a trip to the National Training Center, 

units should plan and resource construction far enough in 

advance to enable a construction unit to complete a project 

during or adjacent to a rotation. The planning of the project 

May-August 2009 Engineer 69

A 5th Engineer Battalion survey team sights in a road during construction operations.
would be training in itself. The focus should not be strictly 

on finishing the project within the rotation window, since 

that would limit the scope to small projects only. Rather, 

the focus should be on projects similar in scope to those the 

unit will build while deployed.

Quality and Efficiency Ensured

The 5th Engineer Battalion completed more than 150 

construction projects during one Operation Iraqi 

Freedom deployment, including road construction 

and repair, helicopter landing zones, joint security stations, combat outposts, force protection construction and 

upgrades, Southwest Asia huts for housing expansions, 

electrical upgrades, and numerous other projects. The battalion was only able to ensure quality and efficiency after 

creating a CMS, acquiring the right technical equipment, 

and developing officers and NCOs with skills in contracting, project management, survey and design management, 

resource management, writing technical scopes of work and 

construction directives, and QA/QC planning. Much of this 

development was the result of on-the-job training. All engineer battalions should continue to build and retain great 

engineers, which requires a properly organized battalion 

CMS that improves technical capability through training 

focused on construction management. 

Major Hannan is the operations officer for the 5th Engineer Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Previously, he 

was the battalion executive officer; a sapper platoon leader, 

brigade engineer, and aide-de-camp in the 82d Airborne Division; United States Army, Europe topographic officer; company commander, planner, assistant operations officer, and 

brigade maintenance officer in the 18th Engineer Brigade; 

and small-group leader for the Engineer Captains Career 

Course, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He holds a bachelor’s 

in civil engineering from The Ohio State University and a 

master’s from the University of Missouri–Rolla (now Missouri University of Science and Technology).

70 Engineer May-August 2009

Engineers clear and grub a road during construction operations. 
May-August 2009 Engineer 71

At the time that the Engineer Regiment began its 

transformation to the Future Engineer Force struc-

.ture, the United States Army was pursuing a parallel effort to transform its basic warfighting force from a 

division-centric force to the modular brigade combat team 

(BCT) force. Engineer modularity was a central linchpin 

that supported the transformation of that division force to 

the BCT force. The original premise was for those engineers 

who would be needed routinely to support mobility capabilities to remain as part of the BCT. All other engineer 

force structure capabilities would migrate to the Engineer 

Force Pool.

Categories of Engineer Modularity

Engineer modularity is identified by four categories:

Embedded

Baseline

Mission modules

Engineer command and control (C2) 

Embedded. The embedded engineer force structure 

is the engineer structure organic or assigned to the BCT. 

The remaining three categories are part of the Engineer 

Force Pool. 

Baseline. The baseline structure is the seven basic engineer companies:

Sapper company (airborne, wheeled, and tracked) 

Mobility augmentation company (MAC)

Multirole bridge company (MRBC)

Clearance company

Horizontal construction company

Vertical construction company

Engineer support company

Mission Modules. Engineer mission modules consist of 

the following:

Asphalt team

Concrete team

Construction management section

Engineer detachment-headquarters (canine)

■

■

■

■

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

Engineer squad (canine)

Engineer diving team

Engineer facility detachment (EFD)

Equipment support platoon

Explosive hazards team (EHT)

Explosives hazards coordination cell (EHCC)

Firefighting team

Headquarters and fire truck

Forward engineer support team–main (FEST–M)

Forward engineer support team–advance (FEST–A)

Geospatial planning cell

Prime power battalion

Prime power company

Quarry platoon

Real estate team

Survey and design team

Well drilling headquarters and team

Topographic company

Engineer Command and Control. Engineer C2 consists of the engineer battalion, headquarters and headquarters engineer brigade, and theater engineer command.

During the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) cycles 

of reset, train/ready, and available, the baseline force structure engineer companies are designed so that a company 

commander can focus on specific individual and collective 

tasks associated with the specific capabilities of the company. That way a sapper company can concentrate on combat 

engineer tasks, a MAC on assault breaching and bridging 

and countermobility tasks, and an MRBC on bridging. During the train/ready phase, the battalion commander sees 

that the collective tasks appropriate for an engineer mission team are trained. In effect, this creates task-organized 

companies capable of performing engineer missions related 

to specific missions.

A key factor in developing the right engineer force structure is the planner involved in the request for forces. In some 

cases, the planner will not be an engineer, so it is imperative that planners at all levels are familiar with the specific 

capabilities that each baseline or engineer mission module 

brings to the fight. Engineers at each level of the fight need 

to be able to articulate these capabilities to planners.

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

By Lieutenant Colonel Steve Danner and Mr. Don Wenzel

Modularity Engineer

(continued on page 76)
72 Engineer May-August 2009

The necessity to detect tunnels that penetrate secure 

facilities such as detention centers, government 

offices, borders, or forward operating bases (FOBs) 

has developed from the need to deter or counter underground 

exploitation along the southern United States border, Iraq, 

and other facilities. The United States Army has been in 

the tunnel detection business for many years, to include 

providing support to other government agencies in locating 

tunnels along our southwest border. Iraq became an issue 

with the nearly successful escape from a tunnel constructed 

over several months by detainees in an Iraqi center.1 A team 

of researchers was sent to Iraq to investigate the utility of 

several technologies that perhaps could detect voids as small 

as 1 meter in diameter. A third technology investigated was 

a passive seismic/acoustic array. The team built a 7-meterdeep tunnel at the same depth as the escape tunnel.2

 The 

array was tested around the camp to garner the seismic and 

acoustic characteristics of the typical vehicles and machinery 

and their interactions with the soil and each other. The 

in-tunnel tests were conducted using typical digging tools 

available to the detainees. All of these signals were then 

used to “train” the computer algorithms. Plans were laid 

for a larger study and more detailed sediment and mineral 

studies. There is a definite requirement to thoroughly 

understand the interactions between sound propagation and 

the local geology and geochemistry of the sediments. 

Site Geology

Distribution of mineral composition, grain size, and 

moisture content of soils are known to affect attenuation of electromagnetic and other geophysical 

sensor signals.3, 4 The geologic setting of an area determines 

the suitability of a given technique for locating visually obscured features such as tunnels in the shallow subsurface.

In the area surrounding the test tunnel, the upper 

6 meters of sediments were deposited as part of a delta 

during a time of higher sea level, when low-gradient rivers 

carried fine-grained sediments into a shallow sea. The 

resulting sediments vary in thickness, density, moisture 

content, and color—both horizontally and vertically. These 

sediments are now overlain by fine-grained, windblown 

material. Subsequent natural and man-caused processes 

have changed much of the original sedimentary layering. 

 The upper sediments can be cemented with either calcium 

carbonate (calcite) or calcium sulfate (gypsum) to a depth of 

about 30 centimeters and are difficult to dig through. In the 

upper layer, the gypsum forms veinlets some 5 millimeters 

in diameter and spaced quite closely throughout the layer. 

Crystals of gypsum up to 3 centimeters in length are present 

in the upper layers. The lower sediment layers are typically 

devoid of visible gypsum crystals. These veinlets are hard, 

making digging difficult and producing definite signatures 

that can be picked up with the sensors (see Figure 1). 

At some locations in the study area near the surface, there 

are substantial areas of white cemented sand that is locally 

called “gatch” (see Figure 2, page 73). Gatch forms when 

carbonate or sulfate minerals (calcite, gypsum, or both) are 

deposited by movement and evaporation of water in the pore 

space of previously deposited sand.5 When water is mixed

with a 50-50 mixture of gatch and other surficial material, 

an extremely hard block is formed. This local geochemical 

phenomenon has significant impact on potential tunnel 

By Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Tucker Ph.D., Colonel James R. Rowan (Retired), Dr. Jason R. McKenna, 

Dr. Lillian D. Wakeley, Mrs. Sarah McComas, Ms. Julie R. Kelley, and Mr. Thomas E. Berry

Protecting Secure Facilities From 

Underground Intrusion Using 

Seismic/Acoustic Sensor Arrays

Figure 1: Typical strata sequence in the study area. Subtle 

vertical color changes represent varying geochemical 

characteristics of the sedimentary environment.
May-August 2009 Engineer 73

construction. The top some 20 centimeters of fine windblown 

sand is loose, but below that, the sand is cemented. This 

layer is strong enough to support pedestrian traffic and even 

heavy equipment. Thus, even in highly disturbed sediments 

and sands, stabilized shallow tunnels are possible after just 

a short time. 

On the FOB, a thick sequence of unconsolidated sand 

occurs at about 7 meters. This coarse sand is composed of 

angular grains of quartz (particles 2 millimeters in diameter) 

and extends at least 1 meter below the tunnel floor. Digging 

in the sand layer is easy. This sand is distinctly different 

from the other sediments on the FOB and, if observed on 

the surface, is a telltale sign of digging. Understanding the 

geology of an area will provide good intelligence signs of 

digging in any location. Use of imaging technologies can be 

key to detecting digging in many locations.

Within the lower sand layer and the silt just above it, 

black concretions appear as very hard clusters of sand grains 

cemented in a star-burst pattern by a black mineral up to 

3 centimeters in diameter (see Figure 3). Digging through 

these mineral clots makes a distinct high-pitched sound 

when they are struck with an entrenching tool or chisel. 

The extraordinary lateral and vertical variability of the 

sediments in the upper several meters of soil at the site 

caused the failure of traditional geophysical techniques 

to locate tunnels or voids. The presence of fine-grained 

minerals and soluble salts increased the conductivity of 

the soil and precluded downward propagation of signals 

from methods such as ground-penetrating radar and 

electromagnetic surveys. These unfavorable geologic factors 

prompted the team to develop passive seismic-acoustic 

technologies to detect tunneling activity rather than the 

tunnels themselves.

Initial Experiments

The initial project centered on data collection from a 

tunnel the team dug at the interface of the compacted silt layers and the unconsolidated coarse sand 

layer. The sensor array was placed at right angles to the 

tunnel and data collected over several days.6 This data was 

used to populate the computer algorithms and train the users. During data collection, the rainy season began. This 

36-hour rain event provided an excellent opportunity to 

compare the effect of soil moisture on the propagation and 

receipt of signals by the array.7 The rain event allowed the 

team to quantify the signal changes from the full range of 

mechanical and other sources on a secure facility. The most 

significant impact was the increase in amplitude; nearly all 

signals were detected from greater distances through moist 

soil than had been observed during the dry season (see

Figure 4).

Beetles, insects, and rodents burrow within the sediments and can dig large galleries. With extended reach 

of the data collection array in a wet environment, some of 

these signals could be identified as human digging without 

proper analysis.

During the 2008 sampling season, detailed soil samples 

were collected. Long trenches were dug to a depth over 

2 meters and a small block of one wall was selected for 

sampling. Ten centimeters deep, drive cylinders were used 

to collect in situ samples. The soil around the cylinders 

Figure 2. A layer of gatch about 20 centimeters below the 

surface. This layer was about 10 centimeters thick.

Figure 3. Black mineral concretions at the tunnel face. 

Striking these minerals makes a distinctive noise.

Figure 4. Ambient acoustic noise field before and after 

36 hours of steady precipitation.
74 Engineer May-August 2009

was carefully removed and saved for further analysis (see 

Figure 5). The collection process continued to a depth of 

about 2 meters. 

Array Around the Camp

The physical tests and the soil analysis indicated 

that a seismic and acoustic array could be installed 

around a facility. Automated processes could be used 

to filter out the vast majority of the energy sources while 

still differentiating the signals of interest that were likely 

tunnels being constructed or tunnels being used.

Commercial off-the-shelf geophones were emplaced 

around compounds where tunnels had been found. Sensors 

were placed in pairs (one deep and one shallow) at regular 

intervals covering the entire perimeter. The geophones 

were connected to a buried cable that circled the compound. 

Installation of the sensors and associated cabling required a 

significant effort because the compound infrastructure was 

already in place. Detection systems need to be integrated 

into the construction design and installed with initial 

construction when possible. 

Placing the geophones in pairs was crucial to discriminating between deep and shallow energy sources. 

Acoustic sensors were placed at regular intervals to help 

filter out the huge amount of surface background noise 

from sources that included vehicles, generators, rotary wing 

aircraft, explosions, and conversations.

After the signal was digitized, it went through an 

outside the continental United States (OCONUS) filter to 

determine which signals have characteristics similar to the 

signals of interest. An initial statistical analysis of these 

signals was computed to reduce the amount of data sent 

to the Continental United States (CONUS) via a satellite 

uplink. The data CONUS received went through a set of 

sophisticated algorithms which again reduced the data the 

analyst needed to review. The signals that remained were 

generally of interest to the analyst. The filtering processes 

significantly reduced the amount of data that needed to be 

reviewed by a human, but still the most important part 

of the system was a human analyst. Each area of interest 

was reviewed by a trained analyst to determine what kind 

of energy source produced the signal, whether the signal 

was generated by threat activity (such as digging with a 

hand tool—scraping of tools against wall or floor) or clutter 

activity (such as construction, vehicle traffic, or generators). 

This was completed by looking and listening to sections of 

the digitized signal since the human eyes and ears comprise 

one of the best pattern-recognition systems. The analyst was 

able to identify these signals by comparing them to signals 

from the Tunnel Activity Detection System (TADS) signal 

library. This library included both types of signals—threat 

activity and clutter. 

After an analyst identified an area with threat activity 

(see Figure 6), he sent a notification to the appropriate 

authority at the secure facility. These notifications were 

vetted to determine if they were actually threats. The 

results of this process produced great success and were 

added to the signal library to further expand our knowledge 

of the threat.

Figure 5. The top panel shows the drive cylinders before 

emplacement. The middle panel shows the emplaced cylinders. The bottom panel shows the cylinders just before 

being removed from the sample layer.

Figure 6. An example of threat activity. The lines in the 

lower graph (between 10 hertz and 400 hertz) are impacts 

with a hand tool. The dots above top graph indicate detections made by the TADS algorithm. 
May-August 2009 Engineer 75

Recent Threats

After a unit received a tip that something strange was 

going on there, a young lieutenant led his patrol to

.a bakery where two men were sitting. The quiet 

street in Mosul quickly became a hub of activity. The patrol 

noted that there was no bread or even flour in the bakery, 

just shovels and piles of dirt. The patrol discovered the tunnel entrance, and a check of the database showed that the 

two men had been arrested earlier on suspicion of being

al-Qaeda supporters. A tunnel went about 50 feet from the 

bakery toward a secure governmental facility. The plan 

seems to have been to set a large amount of explosives in a 

gallery under the facility to inflict as much damage as possible.8

 The tunnel appeared to be constructed in compacted 

sediments with only a few rocks. The sediment seemed relatively strong and did not appear to require a lot of shoring 

to provide short-term use of the structure.

On 2 September 2008, another tunnel was discovered 

on our southwest border, with its origins in a house in 

Mexicali, Mexico, heading toward Calexico in the United 

States (see Figure 7). The tunnel—about 1.5 meters wide by

2 meters high and about 5 to 6 meters below the surface, 

with lights, piped air, and rails—appeared to have been dug 

with hand tools through compacted sediments. The soil was 

competent enough to hold its shape, allowing the builders to 

use minimal supports. 

Conclusions

Tunnels remain a persistent threat to U. S. security, 

both at home and abroad. Due to the highly local 

and variable nature of the near surface, imaging 

techniques to discover tunnels has met with many challenges. The most promising technology was passive seismic/

acoustic arrays. Through the second deployment, the team 

constructed an array around a secure facility. The initial 

data were added to the more extensive subsequent data and 

used to “train” the algorithm.

The installation, validation, and transition of this system 

were an overwhelming success, advancing from a field test 

in 2005 to a fully operational system in a combat zone in 

one generation. Over the first three months of operation 

and experience, the analyst tasks were reduced by an order 

of magnitude and the signal-processing algorithms were 

continually improved. 

A systematic geologic and geochemical investigation 

of the impacts of soil properties on seismic/acoustic wave 

propagation could benefit further refinement of the 

algorithm. The geologic and geochemical aspects of the 

physical environment will impact the ability to detect active 

tunneling or tunnel use, as well as the actual construction 

of a tunnel. Understanding this physical environment 

will have effects on the design and construction of secure 

facilities and the construction materials used. Knowledge of 

the subsurface soils will provide clues to tunneling activities 

by direct and indirect observation on and away from a 

secure facility. The use of tunnels to penetrate or breach 

secure facilities has been used for thousands of years (with 

sappers and mining engineers leading the way). The current 

struggles in Southwest Asia are no exception to the threat of 

subterranean intrusion (tunneling). Engineers with geology/

geochemical/geophysics expertise could make technical 

assessments throughout the planning and execution phases 

of these projects. The engineers and military police must 

work together to mitigate this threat and continue to protect 

our secure facilities from subterranean intrusion. 

Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank the 16th 

Military Police Brigade and the 300th Military Police 

Brigade for their support during this deployment. The 

servicemembers from the Army, Navy, and Air Force who 

were part of these military police brigades were exceptional. 

Thanks are also owed to the tremendous effort of our 

industry partners, BBN Technologies, who were crucial in 

virtually every aspect of integrating this work.

Lieutenant Colonel Tucker is assigned to the Capability 

Development & Integration Directorate (CDID) at the United 

States Army Maneuver Support Center, Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri. He holds a doctorate in geochemistry from 

Colorado School of Mines.

Colonel Rowan (Retired) is the Deputy Assistant 

Commandant, United States Army Engineer School. 

Previously, he served as the Assistant Technical Director for 

Military Engineering at the United States Army Engineer 

Research and Development Center (ERDC), Vicksburg, 

Mississippi. In this capacity, he worked extensively in the 

area of tunnel detection both along the U.S. border and 

at several sensitive overseas locations. Other key duty 

positions include Commander, ERDC; Commander, 1st 

Engineer Brigade; Commander, 54th Engineer Battalion; 

and Commander, 16th Engineer Battalion. He has served 

in Operation Iraqi Freedom both as a military officer and 

a civilian. 

Dr. Wakeley is a senior research geologist at ERDC. She 

served as Chief of the Engineering Geology and Geophysics 

Branch and has been involved in tunnel detection and nearsurface geology, as well as specialty materials for use in 

challenging environments.

Figure 7. Discovered tunnel leads from Mexicali toward

the United States.
76 Engineer May-August 2009

Mrs. McComas is a research computer engineer at 

ERDC. She holds a bachelor’s in computer engineering from 

Mississippi State University. Her research focus has been 

in seismic/acoustic monitoring, and she has supported tunnel 

detection missions both along the U.S. border and overseas. 

Ms. Kelley is a research geologist at ERDC. She holds a 

master’s in geology from the University of Mississippi and a 

bachelor’s in nursing from Washington State University. Her 

expertise is geological site characterization and stratigraphy 

and sedimentation processes. 

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

Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), 

Vicksburg, Mississippi, and the technical lead for the ERDC 

Tunnel Detection and Deterrence Team.

Mr. Berry is a research biologist in the Environmental 

Laboratory, Environmental Sensing Branch, at ERDC. In this 

capacity, his expertise is terrain background characterization 

using EO/IR, LiDAR, Spectrometers, and RTK-GPS. He has 

supported several military programs both CONUS and OCONUS, 

specializing in countermine technologies. He holds a bachelor’s 

in landscape management from Mississippi State University.

Endnotes

1

Steve Fainaru and Anthony Shadid, “In Iraq Jail, Resistance 

Goes Underground: Escape Tunnel, Improvised Weapons 

Showcase Determination of Inmates,” The Washington Post, 

Washington Post Foreign Service, Wednesday, August 24, 

2005, page A01.

2

Robert E. Tucker and Jason R. McKenna, “Implementing 

4-Dimensional Force Protection Measures at Forward 

Operating Bases,” 25th Army Science Conference, 2006.

3

T. Saarenketo, “Electrical Properties of Water in Clay and 

Silty Soils,” Journal of Applied Geophysics 1998 40:73-88. 

4 S. A. al Hagrey and C. Muller, “GPR Study of Pore Water 

Content and Salinity in Sand,” Geophysical Prospecting 2000 

48:63-85.

5

F. M. Shaqour, “Cone Penetration Resistance of Calcareous 

Sand,” Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment

2007 66:59-70.

6

Robert E. Tucker, Jason R. McKenna, H. Mihan, and 

Michael S. Mattice, “Detecting Underground Penetration 

Attempts at Secure Facilities,” Engineer, January-March 2007, 

31-34.

7

Jason R. McKenna and Mihan H.McKenna, 2006, “Effects 

of Local Meterological Variability on Surface and Subsurface 

Seismic-Acoustic Signals,” 25th Army Science Conference.

8

Philip Robinson, “U.S. Soldiers Thwart Plan to Destroy 

Government Site,” Associated Press, 9 September 2008. 

Reference

Marjorie A. Chan, Brenda Beitler, W. T. Parry, Jens Ormö 

and Goro Komatsu, “A Possible Terrestrial Analogue for 

Haematite Concretions on Mars,” Nature 429, 731-734 (17 

June 2004).

Sharing Lessons Learned

The Engineer Regiment’s transition to a modular force 

is now more than 90 percent complete. That means 

that we are beginning to see adjustments that need 

to be made in our organizations, as well as changes that 

need to be made to the tactics, techniques, and procedures 

we use when employing these forces. It is essential that lessons learned from the employment of our engineer forces 

are captured and shared so that best practices can be incorporated into the way we train and fight.

Current doctrine is being revised to address the engineer 

force structure at all levels to ensure that emerging lessons 

learned from Iraq and Afghanistan are incorporated into our 

doctrine. The doctrine for employment at the BCT is published, and the doctrine for echelons above the BCT is close 

to being published. Engineer organizations will continue 

to incorporate these lessons learned while still addressing 

the full spectrum of engineer tasks and support to enduring

operations.

There are still changes being worked for the Engineer 

Regiment. The prime power company and battalion have 

been restructured to better use prime power assets. The 

topographic company has been restructured to provide a required capability at all levels of the fight. There is an initiative to add a geospatial warrant officer to each of the BCTs 

as was done for the Stryker BCT. The MRBC is being considered for review to bring its organization in line with the other 

baseline company structures. The clearance company is now 

under consideration for a force design update incorporating 

lessons learned from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. There is also considerable effort at this point 

to restructure engineer forces within the BCTs to provide a 

wider range of engineer capability to BCT commanders.

There will continue to be force structure adjustments to 

the Engineer Regiment in the coming years. Each of these 

efforts will be attuned to keeping it relevant to the fight 

while providing the commander with the best-trained, bestorganized, and best-equipped force feasible.

Lieutenant Colonel Danner is Chief, Maneuver Support 

Organizations Branch, Concept Development Division, Capability Development and Integration Directorate, United States 

Army Maneuver Support Center (MANSCEN), Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri. His branch documents requirements for personnel and equipment in chemical, biological, radiological, and 

nuclear (CBRN); engineer; military police; maneuver enhancement brigade (MEB); 20th Support Command (CBRNE) and 

brigade special troops battalion (BSTB) tables of organization 

and equipment (TOE).

Mr. Wenzel is Team Chief for the Force Management Team, 

Maneuver Support Organizations Branch, Concept Development Division, Capability Development and Integration Directorate, MANSCEN. His team documents rules of allocation 

and capabilities needs analysis that support requirements for 

personnel and equipment in CBRN; engineer; military police; 

MEB; and BSTB TOE.

(“Modularity,” continued from page 71)
May-August 2009 Engineer 77

The Joint Deployment Training Center (JDTC) at Fort 

Eustis, Virginia, offers a Joint Engineer Planning 

and Execution System (JEPES) course for joint engineer staff members. JEPES provides commanders and engineer staff with capabilities to tailor the time-phased force 

and deployment data (TPFDD) for engineer requirements. 

The application enables the staff to identify construction requirements, align engineer force structure, build engineerspecific requirements, and provide cost estimates within the 

TPFDD in coordination with the Joint Operation Planning 

and Execution System (JOPES) community. 

JEPES operates through the Global Combat Support 

System–Joint (GCSS–J) web portal. Engineers can— 

Import JOPES plans.

Generate engineer reports. 

Identify base complexes and construction 

requirements.

Manage engineer units and resources.

Construct an engineer-specific plan for use in JOPES.

Extract facilities data using the GCSS–J Query Tool.

Engineer students learn how to—

Use all of the JEPES menu functions.

Construct a JEPES plan. 

Share and coordinate information with other GCSS–J

portal users. 

Access federated applications, such as in-transit visibility (ITV), CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] World 

Factbook, and Port and Airfield Collaborative Environment (PACE).

JEPES is a one-day, certificate-awarding course. Engineer students should already have completed a GCSS–J

portal course or be proficient with GCSS–J prior to taking

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

JEPES. GCSS–J courses are essential for any engineer student or engineer action officer who needs to manage engineering assets in a TPFDD or operational environment at 

any combatant command or joint task force. 

Training is conducted at Fort Eustis or by mobile training 

team in conjunction with a GCSS–J portal course. A final 

U.S. secret clearance is required to attend. To schedule a 

JEPES or GCSS–J portal course, contact Mr. Keith Davison 

at DSN 381-0932 or <keith.davison@disa.mil>.

JDTC develops and delivers functional Global Command 

and Control System–Joint training. This includes joint 

deployment planning and execution, situational awareness, and global force management training and education 

through standardized curricula to combatant commands, 

Department of Defense and other agencies, and professional 

military education institutions. JDTC trains Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines as they will operate, using tools 

essential in the command and control of combat operations, 

joint logistics, force planning, and deployment. Training 

mirrors real-world operations in a hands-on environment, 

under the supervision and guidance of experts through resident, mobile training team, and virtual campus instruction. 

Distributed learning courses are available through Joint 

Knowledge Online (JKO) and JDTC websites. For more information, visit <www.jdtc.jfcom.mil>.

Ms. Valencia is a communications analyst for the Joint 

Deployment Training Center at Fort Eustis, Virginia. 

She holds a bachelor’s from Mary Washington College 

and a master’s from Averett University, both in business

administration.

Mr. Steffey is an instructor and course director for the 

Joint Deployment Training Center at Fort Eustis, Virginia. 

He holds a bachelor’s from Northern Michigan University 

and a master’s from Troy State University, both in business 

administration.

By Ms. Tara C. Valencia and Mr. Brad Steffey