United States Army Engineer School

573-563-8080 / DSN 676-8080

COMMANDANT

MG Randal R. Castro

563-6116

<randal.castro@us.army.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL(P) Todd T. Semonite

563-6192

<todd.semonite@us.army.mil>

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR

CSM Clinton J. Pearson

563-8060

<clinton.pearson@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

COL Lou L. Marich

563-8080

<lou.marich@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–USAR

COL Gerald Lago

563-8045

<gerald.lago@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–ARNG

LTC Dennis V. Smith

563-8046

<dennis.v.smith@us.army.mil>

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC Anthony C. Funkhouser

563-7116

<anthony.funkhouser@us.army.mil>

TRADOC SYSTEMS MANAGER for ENGINEER COMBAT SYSTEMS

COL Robert Nicholson

563-4081

<robert.nicholson@us.army.mil>

TRADOC PROGRAM INTEGRATION OFFICE–TERRAIN DATA

COL Thomas Crabtree

329-1908

<thomas.crabtree@us.army.mil>

COMMANDER, 1st ENGINEER BRIGADE

COL Joseph Schweitzer

596-0224, DSN 581-0224

<joseph.schweitzer@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT

COL Paul W. Kelly

563-4093

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

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION

Dr. Rebecca Johnson

563-4129

<rebecca.johnson1@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF FUTURES CENTER - ENGINEER

COL Richard M. Hornack

563-7955

<richard.hornack@us.army.mil>

HUMANITARIAN DEMINING TRAINING CENTER

Mr. Rodney A. Robideau

596-3870

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

COUNTER EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS CENTER

LTC Kent D. Savre

593-4085

<kent.savre@us.army.mil>

Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is published quarterly

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

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

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to United

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

Wood, Missouri 65473-8929.

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

copies, and unit address changes should be sent to

Engineer at the preceding address. Telephone:

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

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

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

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

engineers informed of current and emerging developments within their areas of expertise for the purpose of enhancing their professional development.

Views expressed are those of the authors and not

those of the Department of Defense or its elements.

The contents do not necessarily reflect official U.S.

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

items constitutes neither affirmation of their accuracy

nor product endorsement. Engineer reserves the right

to edit material submitted for publication.

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

OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION is targeted to all engineer and engineer-related units.

PERSONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS are available for

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

Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15250-7954.

ADDRESS CHANGES for personal subscriptions

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

Washington D.C. 20402.

By Order of the Secretary of the Army:

PETER J. SCHOOMAKER

General, United States Army

Chief of Staff

Official:

Sandra R. Riley

Administrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army

06101
ENGI

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

NEER

 Engineer 1

COMMANDANT

Major General

Randal R. Castro

July-September 2005

FEATURES

04 Fighting as Engineers

 By Captain Matthew Louvet

07 Urban Operations Training at the Power Projection Platform

“Welcome to Al Wadi”

 By Lieutenant Colonel John C. McClellan and Captain Eric M. Noe

11 The Combat Corps Wheeled Battalion in the Divisional Warfight

– Combat Engineering in an Urban Environment

 By Lieutenant Colonel David E. Chesser and Major Adam S. Roth

15 Effecting a Major Road Repair in Baghdad

By Lieutenant Colonel Keith A. Landry, Major Glen T. Adams,

and Captain Steven M. Brown

20 The Army’s Top Firefighter

By Ms. Cheryl Green

21 New Tactical Fire Fighting Truck

By Specialist Judith D. DaCosta

22 A Horse of a Different Color – The Maneuver Enhancement Brigade

By Colonel Christopher J. Toomey

24 The 861st Engineer Company Prepares for Deployment

By Sergeant John Cervone

26 A Bridge Recovery Mission in Iraq

By Sergeant First Class Pete Quinton and Second Lieutenant Maureen Wells

28 Unit of Action Reconnaissance Sergeant

By Staff Sergeant Andrew J. Way

29 The New Cavalry Leader’s Course

By Major Matthew A. Dooley

30 Engineer Mobile Training Team – Standing Up the Afghan National

Army Engineering School

By Captain Eric G. Nichols

33 Iraq and the Scoop on Sandbags

By Ms. Dana L. Finney

34 Coyote Engineers Support CJTF-76

By Colonel Nancy J. Wetherill

July-September 2005 Headquarters, Department of the Army Volume 35 PB 5-05-3

UNITED STATES ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

Front Cover:

U.S. Army engineer

Soldiers in urban and

complex terrain -

then and now.

Back Cover:

Sergeant First Class

Paul R. Smith, Medal of

Honor recipient

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Major General Randal R. Castro

03 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major Clinton J. Pearson

18 CTC Notes – “SWEAT”

By Lieutenant Colonel Thomas H. Magness

and Major James Ahear.n (NTC)

25 Book Review

By Mrs. Susan Groth

38 Engineer Update

39 Dedication

40 Subscription Order Form

41 Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith Memorial

Jennifer Morgan

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

Cheryl Green

Penny Moats

Kathy Webber

MANAGING EDITOR

Shirley Bridges
2 Engineer July-September 2005

Clear The Way

By Major General Randal R. Castro

Commandant, United States Army Engineer School

Welcome to our latest issue of Engineer. Greetings to all of youwho are serving from all around

the globe. And thank you for taking the time

to sit with us and read the latest experiences

from the great Soldiers in our Regiment. Each

of you performs a vital job across the force,

and I want you to know I appreciate the

role each of you plays in making the Army

function from day to day. Without you, we

could not accomplish all that we have. I

want to thank you all for what you do for

our Regiment and our country.

As we approach four years of fighting

the Global War on Terrorism, we are busy

as ever, trying to synchronize major events for our Army and

the Engineer Regiment. I know most of our engineers are either deploying, deployed, or recently deployed. Many of you

will also be a part of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)

reorganization and Integrated Global Presence and Basing

Strategy, which will move forward-stationed units to CONUSbased posts. While we do all these deployments and movements between installations, we are going to use this inertia to

transform the Regiment in conjunction with the Army’s efforts

to modularize into brigade combat teams (BCTs), units of

employment-tactical (UEx), and units of employmentoperational (UEy). We received great news recently that the

Vice Chief of Staff of the Army approved the Future Engineer

Force Update. It is a significant event for our Army and will

require everyone’s efforts to accomplish.

Now more than ever, we have the ability to keep you informed on what is happening around the Regiment. I have

spoken to you all recently on a number of subjects that can be

found on our Engineer School Web site at <http://www.

wood.army.mil/eschool/>. Another tool

that we are leveraging to provide you relevant information is “The Engineer Blast.”

It is a bimonthly e-mail newsletter that provides current news and updates throughout the Regiment. If you have not seen it,

ask your unit leadership to pass it down

to you.

This issue is focused on engineer operations in urban and complex terrain. It is

one of our greatest challenges in theater

today, and we must become proficient in

understanding assured mobility in this

environment. We have had some great articles from the folks that are making things

happen. We will continue to address this subject at our Army

Engineer Association Conference, 24-27 October 2005, in

Orlando, Florida. I look forward to seeing our Regiment’s leadership there to share their experiences and lessons learned. I

want to take your feedback and return to the Engineer School

and spiral your ideas into our doctrine and lesson plans for

our Soldiers and young leaders.

We want to continue making this a viable and relevant professional bulletin. Continue to submit your articles and share your

experiences and lessons learned with the Regiment.

As I close this message, I ask you to take a deep breath, let

it out slowly, and relax. Don’t forget what is important...I want

you to remain balanced in your lives, contribute to your team

of teams, and passionately make a positive difference wherever you serve.

 Thanks again for all you do for our Regiment and the Army!

Essayons!

Carry On!

The back cover of this issue of Engineer and the poster in the center are a tribute to Sergeant First Class

Paul Ray Smith, an engineer Soldier and the recipient of the first Medal of Honor for service during Operation

Iraqi Freedom and the Global War on Terrorism. Sergeant Smith, whose selfless service to his country was

the epitome of the Warrior Ethos, has brought great honor to the Army and to the Engineer Regiment.

○○○○○○○○
Lead The Way

By Command Sergeant Major Clinton J. Pearson

United States Army Engineer School

July-September 2005 Engineer 3

I

 would like to begin by saying thanks

for the great work by all of the great

sappers across the globe. I’d also like

to extend a warm welcome to the new leaders

within the Engineer School. What a super

team we have!

During my travels throughout the previous quarter, I witnessed officers, noncommissioned officers (NCOs), and Soldiers

doing an outstanding job supporting our

nation and our Army at war. In June, for

example, I participated in training with

students of the Urban Mobility Breaching

Course (UMBC) at Camp Lejeune, North

Carolina. The details of this course are in

the Engineer Update on page 38. I am soliciting your help to

send as many NCOs as possible to the UMBC.

Another course I ask you to support is the Explosive

Ordinance Agent Course (EOAC) at Redstone Arsenal,

Alabama. In this course, students learn to identify, categorize,

and destroy captured enemy ammunition (CEA), improvised

explosive devices (IEDs), and unexploded ordnance (UXO). It

bridges the gap between explosive ordnance disposal (EOD)

personnel and engineers.

Three courses offered here at Fort Leonard Wood are the

Sapper Leader Course and the Unit Searcher and Unit Search

Advisor Courses. These courses help produce some of our

Army’s best small-unit leaders and greatly improve their ability

to operate in an urban environment.

Just two years ago, the only specialized course offered by

the Engineer Regiment was the Sapper Leader Course. Today,

we present a myriad of courses. It is imperative that we continue

to send Soldiers to these courses. I have talked to many leaders

and Soldiers in the field who stated that these courses are

making a difference in their confidence and ability to perform

their wartime missions.

I also participated in training with our engineer divers in

Delta Company, 577th Engineer Battalion, at Panama City,

Florida. I was thoroughly impressed by the extensive training

students go through to become divers. Soldiers attend Phase

I of the training at Fort Leonard Wood and Phase II at the

Naval Diving and Salvage Training Center at Panama City.

This training requires a tremendous amount of mental and

physical endurance. It is demanding and challenging and

definitely prepares divers to conduct their wartime and

peacetime missions. If you have Soldiers interested in

becoming engineer divers, visit the

577th’s Web Site at <http://www.wood.

army.mil/577th/Diver/index.htm> for

information.

During August, I attended the 130th

Engineer Brigade off-site in Germany. I

visited the 1st Armored Division and 1st

Infantry Division engineer units and learned

about the challenges they’re facing regarding transformation. I’m confident that

we have the right command teams, at the

right place, at the right time to get the job

done. It was great to speak with the leaders

and Soldiers, and it felt good to be out doing

PT with the outstanding NCOs of the 82d

Engineer Battalion. I am extremely proud of all of you. A special

congratulation goes out to Staff Sergeant Randolph Delaprema

for being selected as Fort Sill’s Drill Sergeant of the Year

for 2005.

The good news transformation story is that this quarter we

will witness the standing up of two engineer battalions: the

20th Engineer Battalion, consisting of three mobility augmentation companies (MACs), one sapper company, and two

firefighting detachments (the 507th and 557th) at Fort Hood;

and the 19th Engineer Battalion (Combat Heavy), consisting

of two vertical companies, one horizontal company, and a

survey and design team at Fort Knox. We’ll also see two mine

dog detachments, consisting of four mine dog teams, standing

up at Fort Leonard Wood.

I look forward to seeing many of you at the upcoming Army

Engineer Association (AEA) Conference in Orlando, Florida.

To register, visit the AEA Web site at <http://www.

armyengineer.com>. It will be great to meet with everyone and

discuss the many topics that are on the agenda.

In closing, I would like to say that I am extremely proud of

our Regiment’s Soldiers for their contributions and positive

impact over the past year. We owe this generation a great deal

of gratitude and respect. I am especially proud of those sappers

deployed around the world in harm’s way—whether it’s in

Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom or in

support of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. These Soldiers

and their families make tremendous sacrifices each and every

day. To those 146 sappers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice

in the cause of freedom, justice, and the American way of

life—neither you nor your families will be forgotten.

God Bless America!
4 Engineer July-September 2005

Acontemporary operating environment forces today’s

leaders to truly be flexible and adaptive and to take

initiative in completing all assigned missions. My own

experience as a combat engineer company commander in Iraq

reinforced the need to be able to adapt—accounting for the

enemy, the terrain, and the mission—to the full spectrum of

combat requirements. Engineer Soldiers and their leaders,

uniquely skilled and equipped, must be prepared to execute

combat operations to include “traditional” engineer tasks in

an urban environment and, when required, to “put down the

shovel and pick up the rifle” and “fight as engineers.”

Much of my own experience in Iraq was in fighting as an

engineer. Field Manual (FM) 7-8, Infantry Rifle Platoon and

Squad, served as a solid foundational document during

predeployment training and on-the-ground mission

preparations. This manual provides the necessary information,

laid out in a very comprehensible format that can be adapted

to fit almost any situation. Two additional references that are

useful are FM 3-06.11, Combined Arms Operations in Urban

Terrain, and Army Training and Evaluation Program (ARTEP)

71-1-MTP, Mission Training Plan for the Tank and

Mechanized Infantry Company and Company Team.

Engineer companies must be capable of conducting urban

combat operations such as raids and cordon-and-search

missions. Both are complex and require dedicated planning

and focused mission rehearsals before execution. Enabling

tasks for these operations include hasty- and deliberateplanning processes, knowledge and understanding of the rules

of engagement (ROE), direct-fire planning tools, distribution

of graphics, and communications procedures that feed a common

operational picture to enable true situational awareness.

As engineers prepare to conduct these missions, the tasks

listed in the table below become required training. Engineer

leaders must be ready to conduct these missions either as part

of a combined arms team or as a ground-mission commander.

They must understand the capabilities and limitations of

By Captain Matthew Louvet

Enabling Tasks for Raids

and Cordon-and-Search Operations

Unit Level Task Number Task

Company

Company

71-2-0308 Conduct a Raid

71-2-2027 Conduct a Cordon-andSearch Operation

Collective Task 71-2-0320

Collective Task

Collective Task

71-2-0221

Infiltrate/Exfiltrate

Execute Actions on

Contact

71-2-0222 Conduct Fire and

Movement

Collective Task 71-2-0219 Attack by Fire

Collective Task 71-2-3061 Support by Fire

Collective Task 71-2-0322

Collective Task

Withdraw From Enemy

Contact

71-2-2025 Clear a Built-Up Area

Collective Task 71-2-2324 Conduct Roadblock/

Checkpoint Operations

Platoon Task 7-3/4-4113

Platoon Task

Platoon Task

Knock Out a Bunker

7-3/4-4114 Clear a Trench Line

7-3/4-4110 Clear a Building

Leader Task 061-283-6003 Adjust Indirect Fire
July-September 2005 Engineer 5

task-organized units and how to best employ all team members

to achieve mission success.

Raids, cordon-and-search operations, and tactical patrols

(mounted and dismounted) are typical “fighting engineer”

missions requiring detailed planning and using available forces

correctly. The engineer commander must task-organize his

force based on the target, the objective area, and the capabilities

of his units. Required equipment includes building marking

materials, detainee binding materials, detainee processing

forms, and detailed target folders with pictures. Engineers need

training on ROE, stack drills, room and building clearance

procedures, and proper search and detainee handling

procedures. Leaders must be flexible enough to transition from

one mission to another based on enemy contact or the

availability of actionable intelligence. For example, there were

several occasions when platoons on patrol had to shift their

focus and conduct raids. The majority of the raids conducted

were hasty with nonorganic units embedded into the patrol.

These were “pickup teams” in every sense—enabled by

capable leaders and well-known battle drills.

Tactical operations that integrate Iraqi security forces are

becoming increasingly important for coalition forces. The

toughest cordon-and-search operation that my company

participated in included elements from a Macedonian special

forces unit, the Iraqi civil defense corps, and the battalion

headquarters. All inherent differences between these three

units had to be worked out during the planning and execution

of missions. Fire control, communications, common language

and terms, and the integration of diverse units with varying

skills and training readiness all had to be addressed to lower

the risk. Detailed planning and rehearsals ensured safe and

successful mission execution.

Engineer units are tasked to run combat patrols and

establish traffic control points (TCP) during patrols. Leaders

must brief all aspects of the mission and incorporate rehearsals

into the mission timeline. Establishing a TCP is a planned event

and requires wire, pickets, interpreters, detainee binding

materials, detainee processing forms, phrase cards, and the

local area be-on-the-lookout (BOLO) list with pictures. Related

training includes establishing and manning checkpoints,

conducting individual searches, conducting vehicle searches,

and understanding ROE.

Although guard duty is not the most difficult job, it is a

common task that must still be accomplished for the security

of the unit. Living on a forward operating base (FOB) requires

that the unit occupy at least a portion of the guard positions.

Tasks that the engineer Soldier must know how to perform

include completing range cards, completing a proper sector

sketch, and conducting adjacent unit linkup to ensure

overlapping fields of fire. Other tools needed include thermal

sights, a compass (for reporting visual contact outside the

perimeter and correctly filling out the range cards), and some

type of communications device.

Manning an entry control point (ECP) on an FOB requires

all the tasks and tools that are needed for guard duty plus

some others. Part of manning an ECP is guarding it from

unauthorized entry. The ROE must be understood at all levels—

especially at an ECP with a high volume of traffic (both military

and civilian). Language and proper use of an interpreter are

Combat engineers work on

one of many construction

projects.

An engineer Soldier uses a handheld mine detector.
6 Engineer July-September 2005

other specific types of training that would benefit Soldiers

and leaders at an ECP. Wire is a necessary item if establishing

an ECP but—as upgrades continue—HESCO® Bastions and

concrete barriers provide additional force protection. Search

areas at an ECP require mirrors for searching under vehicles

and metal-detecting wands for personal searches. If the ECP

is to continue operations during limited visibility, floodlights

and flashlights for mirrors also need to be considered.

Combat engineers must be prepared to conduct general

engineering tasks. Engineer leaders will routinely be required

to conduct force-protection assessments and limited construction projects and have a working knowledge of project

management. While most of my assigned construction missions

were limited in scale, subordinate leaders needed the necessary

skills and tools to be able to draw up a plan for the project,

determine the bill of materials, supervise the construction, and

conduct quality assurance and quality checks of the project.

Engineers must similarly have a working knowledge of basic

environmental infrastructure—sewage, water, electricity,

academics, and trash (SWEAT)—and some simple assessment

checklists to determine project requirements. Engineers should

have a working knowledge of how these systems work or at

least the ability to acquire informational references. Leaders

should look for what is currently in place, working, broken or

missing, and needed to get the system running again to benefit

the local area.

Breach and mine-detector teams are two specialty teams

that the engineers can provide to both the raid and the cordonand-search missions. These teams can vary in size, depending

on forces available and the mission requirements, but they

each require a dedicated security element. The breach teams

need to be trained in all manual, mechanical, and dynamicentry techniques and methods to evaluate structures to

determine the suitability of each. In addition to explosives,

breach teams need a manual breach kit, including a manpackable, collapsible ladder. The mine-detector teams need to

understand their equipment, to include correction operations

procedures and system limitations. My company was often a

force provider for combined arms missions, sending minedetector teams with other units to find caches.

Terrain analysis continues to be a necessary and relevant

skill for engineers. On numerous occasions, TerraBase,

FalconViewTM, and MrSID® provided us with information on

an area for combat operations so that we never went in

unprepared. Additionally, these programs allowed us to

evaluate our guard locations, ECPs, and guard towers and

assess key terrain along lines of communication based on

line-of-sight analysis and weapons range fans.

Engineers must always be ready to conduct technical and

tactical reconnaissance. Whether assessing route trafficability

or conducting bridge-span and load calculations, engineers

in my company were regularly reminded of the technical

requirements of their craft. Additionally, the requirement for

tactical reconnaissance to identify threats to friendly

mobility—whether enemy or improvised explosive devices

(IEDs)—was an implied task for every movement and an

increasingly important component of the unit’s troop-to-task

analysis.

 As the Regiment continues its transformation, the key to

success will be its leaders. The Regiment needs competent,

confident, and flexible Soldiers and leaders

empowered to take the initiative in any

scenario. Engineer leaders must be properly

skilled in unique, technical capabilities;

trained and ready for full-spectrum

operations; and equipped for success in

traditional engineer tasks. When required—

engineer leaders must fight as engineers.

The Soldiers and leaders in my own unit, as

well as those who fill the ranks of the

Engineer Regiment, demonstrate daily that

they are up to the task. Essayons!

Captain Louvet is the officer in charge of

the Scorpion Team at the National Training

Center, Fort Irwin, California, serving as a

staff engineer trainer. Other assignments

include Commander, Charlie Company, 5th

Engineer Battalion, during Operation Iraqi

Freedom in support of the 4th Infantry

Division. He holds a bachelor’s in wildlife

resource management from West Virginia

University and a master’s in geology and

geophysics from the University of MissouriRolla. The mighty D9 dozer clears rubble in preparation for a reconstruction

mission.
July-September 2005 Engineer 7

Creating challenging, realistic urban-training environments for deploying units requires Armyleaders assigned to training support battalions (TSBs)

and brigades to adapt and innovate. Early in 2004,

2d Brigade, 91st Division (Training Support) (2-91st TSB),

began planning postmobilization training to be conducted at

Fort Bliss, Texas, for an Army National Guard brigade combat

team (BCT). Accomplishing this goal required some out-ofthe-box thinking by the leadership of 1st Battalion, 361st

Engineer Regiment (Task Force Redhawk), which is part of

2-91st TSB. This article presents the scenario—and the lessons

learned—used to achieve the complex effects of urban terrain

and the design and execution of training for a deploying BCT.

Existing Fort Bliss Facilities

Although the Fort Bliss power projection platform (PPP)

offered outstanding realism in time-distance factors,

desert terrain, and weather, initial reconnaissance of

base facilities revealed few that were suitable for patrols, closequarters combat, or urban-warfare training. The base had range

camps that could be converted into forward operating bases

(FOBs), but lacked suitable training villages or military

operations on urbanized terrain (MOUT) sites. So the observercontroller/trainers (OC/Ts) of the 2-91st TSB began transforming the base into a series of interlinked urban-training

sites. These included mock villages, industrial centers, and

FOBs capable of supporting squad- or platoon-level patrolling,

company and battalion task force cordon-and-search

operations, and close-quarters combat operations.

While at Fort Bliss, the 2-91st TSB initially occupied three

mobilization base camps that were converted into replicas of

the FOBs that deploying forces would occupy in theater. BCT

maneuver task forces rotated through FOB Baker, located at

Biggs Army Airfield. Two of the five BCT maneuver task forces

were housed for 10 days at a time. The 2-91st TSB training

concept required Task Force Redhawk to train basic patrolling

techniques for the BCT’s five maneuver task forces. The

training included squad/platoon dismounted security patrols

and quick-reaction-force operations and culminated in

company raids and battalion task force-sized cordon-andsearch operations. A sister training battalion also trained them

on mounted patrols and traffic control point operations.

The location of FOB Baker provided a unique opportunity

to develop a training plan that would take full advantage of

the only urban terrain available in the immediate vicinity—the

base itself. In response, Task Force Redhawk created the

fictitious province of “Al Wadi”—a combination of villages

and urban areas designed to replicate an area of operations

located on the outskirts of a large Iraqi city. The Fort Bliss

garrison leadership supported the battalion and, for the first

time in recent history, training lanes were created directly on

Biggs Army Airfield, the adjacent railhead facility, and portions

of the main cantonment area of Fort Bliss. Figure 1, page 8,

shows the main post areas used for the urban-patrolling

operations.

In order to use these main facilities to conduct training,

rehearsals, and force-on-force blank-fire combat patrols, a

detailed plan was briefed to the PPP and garrison leadership

for approval. Several key controls were put into place to ensure

the safety of the Blue Force (BLUEFOR) Soldiers, OC/Ts,

permanent party Soldiers, and residents and employees of

Fort Bliss. A copy of Figure 1 (along with an explanation

of the training concept) was given to the garrison commander

to provide situational awareness to all on-post agencies on

the times and locations of our training patrols. Advance coordination with the provost marshal, airfield commander, Force

Protection Office, Public Affairs Office, and various tenant

agencies adjacent to the patrolling areas was critical to the

plan’s success.

The risk assessment for the operating plan included—

 Alerting Fort Bliss garrison agencies of the areas and times

of patrol operations.

 Alerting the garrison Security/Force Protection Office and

the Provost Marshal Office of the locations of all patrol

routes, emplaced training improvised explosive devices

(IEDs), mock ambushes, and drive-by shootings.

 Coordinating closely with the Provost Marshal Office

throughout operations.

Urban Operations Training

at the Power Projection Platform

By Lieutenant Colonel John C. McClellan and Captain Eric M. Noe

“Welcome to Al Wadi”
8 Engineer July-September 2005

 Positioning OC/Ts in the front and rear of dismounted

formations for traffic control.

 Specifying locations where blank-fire weapons, the Multiple

Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES),

pyrotechnics, and simulated IEDs would be used.

 Planning routine policing of brass from blanks to prevent

hazards to vehicles or pedestrians.

 Training and rehearsing for Opposing Forces (OPFOR) and

contracted civilians on the battlefield.

 Adapting exercise rules of engagement to account for

military and civilian personnel in the area who were not

part of the training (but were a useful backdrop).

In addition, since most of the dismounted patrolling was

conducted between 1800 and 0600 hours, limited visibility had

to be considered and mitigated.

Creating Al Wadi

Within the Al Wadi area of operations, two major

considerations drove the details of the intelligence

scenario created to frame the insurgent activity that

would operate there. The first was the close proximity of Biggs

Army Airfield and the El Paso International Airport, and the

second revolved around the Fort Bliss warehouse district and

railhead.

Biggs and El Paso Airports

The training scenario presented a growing insurgent threat

to coalition air operations at the two airfields that included

anti-Iraqi force surveillance and fence line breaches, IEDs on

coalition supply routes within the sector, and rocket/mortar

attacks aimed at the FOB and the airfields. These activities

disrupted coalition air operations and delayed the reopening

of civilian air traffic (an interim government priority) at the “Al

Wadi International Airport,” still under coalition military control

since the initial seizure. Thus, task force elements would need

to patrol these areas, check fence lines, develop pattern analysis,

conduct crater analysis, and locate insurgent firing positions in

order to defeat the IED threat and rocket/mortar attacks and restore

stability. BLUEFOR dismounted patrolling operations from the

FOB included mounted quick-reaction force missions to reinforce

dismounted security patrols, react to local demonstrations, or

conduct downed aircraft rescue missions in the open desert

military training areas east of the airfields.

To support the airfield threat scenario, Task Force Redhawk

identified the need for outlying urban settings from which the

insurgents could recruit and operate. The task force

constructed two small Iraqi villages with basic structures that

included centrally located homes and businesses, a school, a

police station, and a cafe. The villages were built by the OC/Ts

out of pressure-treated lumber and plywood purchased by

the brigade through the Fort Bliss Directorate of Public Works

and Logistics. While many of the buildings were simple

Figure 1. Map of the main post areas used for dismounted patrols

27 Jul - 02 Aug

07 Aug - 13 Aug

18 Aug - 24 Aug

29 Aug - 04 Sep

09 Sep - 15 Sep

Patrols Active: 1800-0600
 July-September 2005 Engineer 9

one- or two-room structures with a single entry, each village

had some complex floor plans and a two-story mosque. Later,

several old storage buildings were added that the garrison

commander made available. A contract provided soil

stabilization of the roads, which started out as off-road tire

tracks in the Fort Bliss sand. The northern village of “AkbarKristalad” consisted of 41 tightly grouped structures, and the

southern village of “Al Mattr” consisted of 63 structures

dispersed over a wider area (see Figure 2). The sizes and

geography of the two villages allowed different tactical

challenges for the commander to consider, including security

patrols, raids, or cordon-and-search operations. The

construction of the two villages took approximately 6 weeks

and cost about $300,000.

Sand-colored paint, courtyards (formed with concrete

barriers), junked cars, operational streetlights, and realistic

Arabic signage on structures used by role players enhanced

the basic plywood construction of the village. Key structures—

a mosque, police station, town square, coffee house, and

schoolhouse—were treated like the sets of a stage play. A few

carefully placed items—Arabic inscriptions and prayer rugs

in the mosque, a desk and a bulletin board with police patrol

routes in the police chief’s office, and a few desks and a map

of the Middle East in the school—made these structures

complete. Our contracted civilians on the battlefield spent

considerable time there and were encouraged to add anything

that would make the villages more real. Some of the civilians

brought additional furniture, desert plants, and framed artwork,

and one industrious El Paso woman made two authentic Iraqi

flags! They also cooked food over open fires and played

indigenous music. The addition of these features not only

maintained the morale of the civilian workforce but made the

task of searching rooms and buildings more difficult. Weapons

caches were dug into the sand, then they were covered with a

carpet and a desk. Maps, photographs, and computer disks

were stashed behind pictures.

Task Force Redhawk also inherited the use of a previously

constructed “terrorist training camp” that was ideally situated

near the two villages (see Figure 3). This complex was

surrounded by a 4x2 double-apron barbed wire fence and

included a tower, bunkers, an abandoned bus, and a mock

building. The complex—dubbed “Camp Al Qaeda” by the

OC/Ts—replicated an insurgent staging area and was an ideal

target for platoon or company raids, frequently containing a

weapons cache or other intelligence indicators for the patrols

to discover, search, confiscate, or destroy.

Fort Bliss Warehouse District and Railhead

The Fort Bliss warehouse district and railhead, the second

major factor in the scenario for Al Wadi, replicated the northern

edge of the city. Several square blocks of large storage warehouses became the local storage and distribution center for

humanitarian relief supplies by various nongovernmental

organizations. Operating among the legitimate organizations,

the task force inserted the “Islamic Children’s Relief” agency,

an insurgent front whose primary purpose was smuggling

weapons and explosives to support attacks on coalition main

supply routes and the airfields. The training task forces

therefore patrolled the warehouses, checked local (armed)

Iraqi security forces posted there, and attempted to uncover

evidence of insurgent infiltration and covert weapons

smuggling.

From the FOB, patrols moved either east (parallel to the

Biggs Army Airfield and the north) in and around two new

MOUT villages, or west and then north to the Fort Bliss railhead

area. The southern patrolling area encompassed portions of

the Fort Bliss main post, including a warehouse district that

was ideal for the operational scenario. Through coordination

with the garrison, Task Force Redhawk gained access to the

warehouse grounds and the interior of selected buildings to

portray insurgent operations in this area, eventually leading

up to raids or cordon-and-search operations at the company

or task force level.

The tactical challenges of the “Al Wadi warehouse district”

were the centerpiece of the training. Complex urban features

included multistory buildings, deep box-culvert drainage

ditches, 90-degree blind corners, loading docks, fenced

compounds, streetlights, and dumpsters. Since Fort Bliss is

an active military base, real-world traffic added realism to the

Figure 3. Mock terrorist training camp at Biggs Army

Airfield

Figure 2. Village of Al Mattr, main street
10 Engineer July-September 2005

environment. OC/Ts ensured that traffic was unimpeded by

the training operation, although the confusion and gawking

from post personnel and families as they drove past the training

site effectively simulated some of the same conditions found

in Iraq.

Patrol routes (5 to 7 miles in length) were controlled by

mandating designated checkpoints. These checkpoints,

typically power or water substations, required security checks

because they provided essential services to the local villages

and were routinely sabotaged by insurgents to discredit

coalition efforts. Units on patrol would encounter sniper fire,

drive-by shootings, informants, rock-throwing crowds, and

eventually firefights with armed insurgents found caching

weapons inside one of the warehouses.

For the OC/Ts, the checkpoints served to keep multiple,

simultaneous patrols “on time, on target” with the established

master event list in order to accomplish the training objectives

each night. Several squads and platoons could be on patrol at

the same or nearby routes, offset only by a later start time.

OC/Ts used internal communications to maintain situational

awareness and patrol intervals. Squads and platoons were

chosen from separate companies to minimize radio collaboration while on a patrol designed to train squad leader

and platoon leader instincts.

Using this combination of varying urban terrain and the

supporting threat scenario gave the task force the opportunity

to interact with friendly villagers and enemy insurgents, apply

rules of engagement, hone their patrolling skills, and practice

the battle drills they would need to survive these situations in

theater. Junior leaders quickly developed decentralized

thinking since communications were challenging in their

operating environment. At the same time, company command

posts and task force tactical operations centers were able to

refine tactics, techniques, and procedures; develop link

diagrams, pattern analysis, and graduated response matrices;

and track the location and status of their small units while

outside the FOB wire.

Lessons Learned

Urban terrain available for training with battlefield effects

is limited at most Army bases. The 2-91st TSB

constructed its own and convinced post leadership

to allow it to fire blanks and use pyrotechnics in what was

essentially the cantonment area of Fort Bliss. The combination

of the railhead, warehouses, airfields, and mock villages became

a highly effective patrolling environment once occupied by

interactors tied together with a realistic provincial intelligence

backdrop.

Traditional Army MOUT sites can be highly effective

training for some small-unit tactics, patrolling, and closequarters combat with simulations or blanks, but full-up

“shoothouses” of the type the 2-91st TSB constructed at Fort

Bliss are needed to advance training squads and platoons all

the way through live-fire close-combat clearing rooms and

buildings. What most Army MOUT facilities lack is suitable

size; variety of interior layouts; and actual basements, sewers,

streetlights, and other features that are found in a real city.

Existing or abandoned urban settings, such as multiblock

warehouse districts or housing areas, are extremely effective

for large-scale urban-operations training such as companyand battalion task force-sized cordon-and-search operations.

A consideration for the Army in this next round of base

realignments and closures might be to hold onto one or more

suitable areas for this kind of training.

The Army needs an urban warfare center, on the scale of

the existing combat training centers, suitable for audiences up

to battalion task force level and manned by a dedicated team

of observer-controllers and OPFOR who are experts in closequarters combat and insurgent tactics. An urban operations

and counterinsurgency school of thought for mid- to seniorlevel staff officers and commanders could also be added. In

addition, an urban warfare school could be established on par

with the Northern Warfare or Jungle Warfare Schools, along

with potentially changing a phase of the Ranger School to

accommodate an urban-center rotation.

Summary

As 75 percent of the world’s population moves to urban

areas within the next 10 to 20 years, urban combat will

become more prevalent and will increase our Army’s

need to properly train for it. The province of Al Wadi developed

into a highly effective urban and complex terrain training area

for a task force in a BCT. The Al Wadi villages have now been

relocated; however, before they were moved, elements of this

scenario were used again for a second deploying BCT and

several separate companies. And United States Army Training

and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and United States Army

Forces Command (FORSCOM) tenant units and a number of

government, joint, or international organizations also used the

villages to support training on numerous occasions.

Sharpen the Edge!

Lieutenant Colonel McClellan served with the 2-91st TSB

for eight months as the brigade executive officer before assuming

command of the 1st Battalion, 361st Engineer Regiment, in June

2004. Previous assignments include platoon leader, company

commander, and battalion S-3. He has served combat tours in

Desert Shield, Desert Storm, and Operation Iraqi Freedom and

has had extensive overseas experience in Europe, the Balkans,

Korea, and Central America.

Captain Noe served as an observer-controller/trainer

detachment commander for Bravo Company, 1st Battalion,

361st Engineer Regiment, for two years following his

deployment to Iraq. Previous assignments include company

commander, battalion S-1, aide-de-camp, battalion S-2, task

force engineer, and platoon leader. He has served in

Operation Iraqi Freedom, Joint Guardian II, Allied Force,

and Able Sentry and was recently assigned to instruct tactics

as the U.S. Exchange Officer to the Canadian Forces School

of Military Engineering.
July-September 2005 Engineer 11

I

magine a unit being transformed from Code 4 (C4) (not

combat ready) to Code 1 (C1) (fully combat ready) in only

152 days and then successfully executing more than 1,400

combat engineer missions in an urban environment in the span

of a one-year deployment. A unit engaged by insurgent forces

more than 50 times, yet never wavering in the face of the

inherent dangers of combat. A unit whose Soldiers were

awarded 42 Bronze Stars, 22 Purple Hearts, and 12 Army

Commendation Medals for Valor and nominated for the

Meritorious Unit Citation. Sounds like Audie Murphy’s unit

in World War II, doesn’t it? Well, it isn’t. This is the story of

the 458th Engineer Battalion (Corps) (Wheeled), United States

Army Reserve, and how its Citizen-Soldiers provided fullspectrum engineer support to the 1st Cavalry Division in the

urban environment of Baghdad, Iraq, during Operation Iraqi

Freedom. The purpose of this article is to share information

with the Engineer Regiment to help guide other engineer units

in their preparations for conducting operations in an urban

environment in support of the Global War on Terrorism.

Mission Analysis and METL

The corps wheeled engineer battalion is comprised of a

headquarters and headquarters company and three line

companies. Each line company is comprised of a

headquarters element, three sapper platoons, and an equipment

and obstacle section (commonly referred to as the support

platoon). The three maintenance teams (nuclear, biological,

and chemical [NBC] specialists; communications specialists;

and medics assigned to the headquarters company) were

attached to the line companies during the deployment, which

increased their assigned strength. This personnel structure,

along with the battalion’s organic equipment, was ideal for

stability and reconstruction operations in an urban

environment.

According to the modified table of organization and

equipment (MTOE), the mission of the combat corps wheeled

battalion is “to increase the combat effectiveness of the corps

by accomplishing mobility, countermobility, survivability,

and sustainment engineering tasks.” Upon mobilization in

November 2003, the 458th Engineer Battalion was told by the

Engineer Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, to provide direct

support to the division. We only had to look at our secondary

mission “to reinforce divisional engineer units when

required,” to know that we were operating within doctrine.

We were being pushed forward from the corps rear into the

division fight on an asymmetric battlefield and immediately

recognized the need to conduct a thorough mission analysis

and revise our mission-essential task list (METL) for combat

engineering in an urban environment. The revised METL

proved invaluable in guiding the battalion to combat readiness

in a minimum amount of time during postmobilization training.

During the home station phase of mobilization, the military

decision-making process (MDMP) was used to refine the

battalion’s METL. The battalion’s previous war trace alignment

By Lieutenant Colonel David E. Chesser and Major Adam S. Roth Photo by Lieutenant Colonel David E. Chesser
12 Engineer July-September 2005

was to another major theater of operations and was geared for

high-intensity conflict. After being alerted for mobilization,

the battalion’s senior leadership conducted a detailed mission

analysis for stability and reconstruction operations. The

analysis was that the battalion would not be required to perform

many doctrinal engineer missions (such as emplacing or

breaching minefields or supporting river-crossing operations),

but would be tasked to execute several nondoctrinal missions

(such as heavy rescue and route clearance with prototypal

equipment). Our refined mission statement became—

“The 458th Engineer Battalion provides mobility,

countermobility, survivability, and general engineering to

the 1st Cavalry Division in Multinational Division (MND)-

Central Baghdad in support of stability operations and

support operations in order to set the conditions for coalition

forces and enable them to support the progressive transfer of

authority to the Iraqi people, their institutions, and a

legitimate Iraqi national government.”

The battalion METL was then revised, based on the new

mission statement and the doctrine of Field Manual 7-1, Battle

Focused Training.

Training

Based on a training readiness assessment of the stability

and reconstruction operations METL, the battalion

commander and operations staff officer (S-3) developed

a training strategy that ensured combat readiness at the

conclusion of the reception, staging, onward movement, and

integration (RSOI) process. Because 52 percent of assigned

personnel strength was cross-leveled into the battalion within

30 days of mobilization, the strategy initially focused on

individual Soldier survivability skills.

While squad leaders and platoon sergeants were executing

this training and building cohesive teams, the senior leadership

was developing training plans to achieve combat readiness

for stability and reconstruction operations. The unit then

mapped out a plan to train the additional requirements during

a 25-day period of mobilization-station training to attain

(METL) proficiency for deployment. This training included

multiechelon training in military operations on urbanized terrain

(MOUT), basic and advanced demolitions, urban search and

rescue (heavy rescue), and counter-improvised explosive

device (IED) operations. Our partner throughout the training

process was the 3d Battalion, 315th Regiment (Training

Support) (3/315th) which assumed the role of unit assistor

during the mobilization process. The 458th had previously

attended annual training with the 3/315th, who helped plan

and execute a training strategy.

Full-Spectrum Operations

The 458th conducted a relief-in-place/transfer of

authority, initially supporting the 1st Armored Division

on 27 March 2004 and then the 1st Cavalry Division

Photo by Lieutenant Colonel David E. Chesser

Combat engineers emplace

prefabricated

concrete barriers

in support of

force protection

engineering

operations.
July-September 2005 Engineer 13

30 days later. Our expectation was that

stability and reconstruction operations

would evolve into nation building, and we

would be heavily engaged in general

engineering in support of civil-military

operations. We were wrong. By the middle

of April, Mahdi’s army declared war on

coalition forces and the insurgency was in

full swing. Stability and reconstruction

operations turned into full-spectrum

operations for the division. The 458th was

directed to reorganize a platoon to fight as

infantry. And the battalion’s mission evolved

into route clearance (becoming our breadand-butter mission), force protection

engineering, and heavy rescue and

consequence management (taking on a

greater sense of urgency due to the use of

vehicle-borne improvides explosive devices

[VBIEDs]).

Fight as Infantry

In May 2004, the 458th was tasked by the

division Engineer Brigade to reorganize a

platoon to fight as infantry and attach it to

the 91st Engineer Battalion to help secure a

sector of West Baghdad for 9 months. During that period, the

platoon executed patrols, raids, cordon-and-search operations,

IED clearance, and quick-reaction force missions as mounted

and dismounted infantry. The Soldiers executed 450 combat

patrols, engaging insurgents on multiple occasions, without a

single serious injury. The ability of this platoon to rapidly

reorganize and train and successfully execute infantry missions

in a tough urban environment is a testament to the platoon’s

leadership and the rugged training that the corps wheeled

battalion habitually executes in peacetime to be able to fight

as infantry in wartime.

Route Clearance Operations

Probably the single most important engineering mission

executed by the 458th Engineer Battalion was that of

conducting counter-IED operations. Known as Task Force

Iron Claw, the operation assured mobility within the division

battlespace by finding IEDs along main and alternate supply

routes and coordinating with supporting explosive ordnance

teams for destruction or retrieval of the IEDs. Using prototypal

equipment known as the Interim Vehicle-Mounted Mine

Detection System (IVMMDS), the line platoons executed Task

Force Iron Claw operations. The tactics, techniques, and

procedures were continuously altered to enhance the task

force’s capability and survivability in an environment where

93 percent of all IEDs emplaced within Iraq were found. The

primary combat system used by the task force was the mineprotected clearance vehicle (MPCV) commonly referred to as

the Buffalo. The ability of the Buffalo to “interrogate” potential

IEDs with its articulating arm, while the crew remained protected

inside the vehicle, made it invaluable. During 12 months of

combat operations, Task Force Iron Claw completed 575

missions, clearing 171 IEDs over 34,000 kilometers of roadway.

The task force’s ability to locate and neutralize IEDs preserved

combat power and assured mobility for coalition forces.

Insurgents were using the rural roads outside of Baghdad’s

population centers to ferry arms and forces from outlying

weapons caches into the city. The routes they used were

known as “rat lines.” Soldiers of the 458th provided the brigade

combat teams with no-notice barrier emplacement support for

snap traffic control points on many occasions to interdict these

rat lines. The battalion also participated in a more unconventional approach to interdicting the rat lines by using

mine-clearing line charges (MICLICs). The end result was the

denial of insurgent lateral maneuver.

Force Protection Engineering

Many of the forward operating bases (FOBs) constructed

during Operation Iraqi Freedom had limited force protection

due to the availability of barrier materials or engineers to

complete force protection projects. The heavy equipment

available to the battalion, coupled with the abundance of

military occupational specialty 21B combat engineer Soldiers,

made this mission a perfect fit. The battalion was continually

employed in the heightening of force protection at FOBs and

Iraqi facilities within the Task Force Baghdad area of

responsibility. Anything from erecting precast concrete barriers

around key facilities, filling HESCO® Bastions, constructing

Photo by Lieutenant Colonel David E. Chesser

Soldiers from Task Force Iron Claw perform route clearance operations.
14 Engineer July-September 2005

berms around FOBs, and erecting concertina fence were all

missions that the 458th Engineer Battalion performed on a daily

basis. In support of force protection operations, the battalion

constructed more than 19 kilometers of earthen berms and 11

kilometers of concertina fencing, emplaced 1,523 mortar bunkers

and 34,071 precast concrete barriers, and filled 23,690 HESCO

Bastions at 11 FOBs and numerous Iraqi government facilities

to harden them against insurgent attack.

Heavy Rescue Operations

Before deploying, the 458th received the mission to provide

a consequence management and heavy rescue capability as a

result of weapons of mass destruction incidents within

Baghdad. A heavy rescue unit was trained and equipped at the

Fort McCoy Mobilization Station in Wisconsin and provided

urban search and rescue and confined-space rescue on

numerous occasions within the Task Force Baghdad area. (A

description of this unit and its training can be found in the

January-March 2005 issue of Engineer, page 37.)

The pinnacle achievement of the heavy rescue unit, known

as Rescue One, was its actions in response to an anti-Iraqi

forces bombing in the Ghazaliyah section of Baghdad on

29 December 2004. An Iraqi family was held hostage inside a

three-story structure that was wired with 1,800 pounds of

explosives. Once the Iraqi police arrived and opened the door

to the residence, the blast devastated the entire neighborhood.

Members of Rescue One, working hand-in-hand with the Iraqi

first responders, saved the life of a 22-year-old Iraqi woman

through a 3-hour, confined-space rescue and recovered all four

of her children using confined-space rescue and heavyequipment recovery techniques.

Support of Fallujah Offensive

I

n November 2004, the 458th Engineer Battalion received

the mission to provide horizontal engineering support to

the 2d Brigade Combat Team and the United States Marine

Corps during the Fallujah Offensive. The battalion staff

performed the MDMP (as it had for every mission the battalion

received) and tailored a platoon-sized task force of horizontal

construction assets with embedded 21B Soldiers for security.

During a 2-week period, the task force constructed earthen

berms around FOBs, emplaced HESCO Bastions around

command and control nodes, dug in the brigade artillery battery,

and constructed multiple traffic-control points.

Civic Action Projects/Humanitarian Assistance

Due to the intensity of the insurgency, the brigade

combat teams frequently conducted kinetic (offensive)

operations to establish control in sectors. The goal of

the division commander was to eventually conduct nationbuilding operations. His intent was to take the AK-47s out of

the hands of the insurgents and replace them with shovels,

employing the insurgents in projects that would help to rebuild

their nation. The negative aspect of kinetic operations was the

collateral damage that resulted, creating a need to quickly show

the coalition’s commitment to “making it right.” The 458th

Engineer Battalion’s Headquarters Company was tasked to

support what became known as Operation Rhode, and served

to get the Iraqis back on their feet after kinetic operations. The

headquarters company transportation section purchased,

stored, and delivered “Rhode Packages” to brigade combat

teams after combat operations in their sectors.

 Sustenance packages consisted of items for meeting basic

nutritional needs (including rice, flour, and canned goods).

 Construction packages consisted of basic construction

materials required to make repairs to damaged homes

(such as lumber, nails, roofing materials, and plywood).

 Neighborhood area council packages consisted of items

to help reestablish government at the local level (such as

computers, office automation equipment, and basic office

furniture).

This form of nation building provided coalition forces with a

method of demonstrating commitment to the rebuilding of Iraq.

Summary

The 458th Engineer Battalion served with distinction

during Operation Iraqi Freedom in the tough urban

environment of Baghdad. The broad spectrum of

missions the battalion accomplished reflects its adaptation of

engineering doctrine to the contemporary operating environment, coupled with effective training and sound

leadership. The flexibility of the corps wheeled structure, when

combined with the versatility of the Army Reserve’s CitizenSoldiers, makes it an ideal organization for supporting

divisional operations across the continuum of conflict.

Lieutenant Colonel Chesser is the commander of the 458th

Engineer Battalion. He commanded a combat corps wheeled

engineer company in Germany and has served in numerous

staff and leadership positions. He is a graduate of the

Command and General Staff College and the Sustaining Base

Leadership Management Course.

Major Roth is the executive officer of the 458th Engineer

Battalion and has commanded a combat heavy engineer

company. He is a graduate of the Command and General

Staff College and holds a master’s in mechanical engineering

from Boston University.
July-September 2005 Engineer 15

J

ust days after completing a relief-in-place/transfer of

authority with its predecessor, Task Force Black

Diamonds deployed engineer assets off a secure base

camp for the first time in support of Multinational Division–

Baghdad. The task force was formed around the 92d Engineer

Battalion (Combat) (Heavy) as part of the 36th Engineer Group

(Combat). The task force consists of a headquarters and

support company, two combat heavy engineer line companies,

a United States Army Reserve combat heavy engineer line

company, a chemical company, and an Army National Guard

utilities detachment. The mission was to repair three road

craters on a corps main supply route. Using some form of

improvised explosives placed deep inside existing culverts,

anti-Iraqi forces had created the craters along a three-lane

road, which closed the westbound lanes to civilian traffic.

Engineer Reconnaissance

An engineer reconnaissance revealed that the craters

averaged more than 40 feet in diameter and 8 feet in

depth. Key leaders gathered to disseminate the results

of the reconnaissance and receive the battalion commander’s

initial guidance before developing courses of action. The

intelligence staff officer’s (S-2’s) engineer preparation of the

battlefield revealed a pattern of anti-Iraqi force activity in the

area where engineers would be traveling and working. Terrain

analysis at all three crater locations showed that an eastbound

three-lane road, set apart by a 10-meter-wide dirt median,

paralleled the three westbound lanes. Because the westbound

lanes were closed, there was significant civilian traffic on the

eastbound lanes in both directions except during nightly

curfews. At times, civilian vehicles also traveled on a one-lane

dirt road that paralleled the damaged road to the north. An

extended area of one- to three-story buildings flanked the

eastbound lanes. The area to the west of the craters was an

open field, dominated by a high earthen berm near the road.

The security plan would have to address these concerns while

on-site as well as while moving to and from the crater locations.

Course of Action

Photographs and measurements of each crater were used

to develop a course of action. Labeling the craters from

west to east, Crater A was 1.5 kilometers west of Craters

B and C, which were just 50 meters apart. Concept sketches

were developed to repair all three craters simultaneously or in

groups. The battalion commander’s guidance was to repair

Crater A first, then repair Craters B and C simultaneously. This

would potentially increase the total time spent on-site, but by

using maneuver and aviation assets for security, the risk would

be mitigated and the engineer footprint would be relatively

small. The engineer assets task-organized for the mission

included elements from the Reserve line company’s horizontal

construction platoon and one of its vertical construction

Effecting

a Major

Road

Repair in

Baghdad

By Lieutenant Colonel Keith A. Landry,

Major Glen T. Adams, and Captain Steven M.

Brown
16 Engineer July-September 2005

platoons, along with haul assets from the headquarters and

support company’s heavy equipment platoon.

Crater A

Final refinement of the plan further delineated each crater

repair into three distinct phases:

 Phase I consisted of mobilizing and deploying horizontal

engineer assets to clear blast debris from the crater and

repair the road base (see photo on page 15). Required

equipment included a vibratory roller, a front-end loader, a

hydraulic excavator (HYEX), a bulldozer, a Bobcat®, two

M916 tractors with M870 trailers carrying Texas “T”

concrete barriers (which served as vehicle-borne improvised explosive device [VBIED] blast shields), and five

20-ton dump trucks. Two of the trucks were loaded with

fill, while the remaining trucks carried crushed limestone.

To minimize the fill required to repair the subbase, blast

debris from the craters was used for backfill. Clean fill was

deposited on top of the blast debris in layers and

compacted. An 8-inch lift of crushed limestone was used

as the base for the 10-inch-thick reinforced concrete

wearing surface.

 Phase II began once the roller started to compact the layer

of limestone. Engineers from the vertical construction

section prepared the required formwork and placed the

reinforcing steel. The section consisted of a squad, a trailermounted 250- cubic-feet-per-minute (CFM) air compressor,

a 5-ton dump truck, and several masonry kits. The dump

truck’s bed was raised and used to drop the prefabricated

forms and rebar mats onto the road surface. The forms

were used where the crater had breached the road shoulder.

The bars of the rebar mats were tack-welded to reduce

fabrication time, allow rougher handling in transit, and

increase the speed of emplacement.

 Phase III consisted of the actual concrete placement. A

local contractor provided the concrete for the pour. The

vertical section Soldiers were the only ones on the ground

to work the concrete into the form, and the engineer

Soldiers provided local security. For Crater A, Phases I

and II took place on Day 1 of the mission. Phase III, which

required five truckloads of concrete (approximately 40

cubic yards), took place on Day 2. Since five concrete

trucks were never available at one time, engineer Soldiers

had to wait while the trucks returned to the batch plant to

be reloaded. Turnaround times for this mission ranged

from 45 minutes to 3 hours depending on traffic, route

conditions, and camp gate access. Using a concrete

additive decreased its curing time, allowing the crater

repairs to be completed and the road available for traffic

much sooner.

Craters B and C

Plans for repairing Craters B and C were refined using

lessons learned while repairing Crater A. During initial

movement to the location of Craters B and C, the engineer

lieutenant in charge staged a heavy, expanded-mobility tactical

truck (HEMTT) wrecker, the 20-ton dump trucks, and the

vertical section’s equipment in preparation for Phases II and

III on Craters B and C. Engineer assets would be called forward

from the rally point as required to minimize the size of the

engineer footprint on-site. During the military decision-making

process (MDMP), it was difficult to determine how much

usable fill material was in each crater. By using the asphalt and

A local contractor

provided the concrete

that Task Force Black

Diamonds placed to

repair Crater B.
 July-September 2005 Engineer 17

blast debris from Crater A to repair the subbase—and removing

the large, unwieldy pieces—the horizontal construction section

only had to bring in fill equal to roughly 25 percent of the

crater volume. Craters B and C were so close to each other that

the engineers determined that the horizontal section could

start Phase I on Crater C while the vertical section executed

Phase II on Crater B without increasing the number of 20-ton

dump trucks required. On Days 3, 4, and 5, engineers hauled

and placed one 20-ton load of blast debris taken from Crater A,

two loads of fill, and four loads of crushed limestone per day.

On Day 4, they placed 40 yards of concrete and repaired

Crater B. On Day 5, they placed 64 yards of concrete and

repaired Crater C.

Lessons Learned

There are several key lessons learned from this repair

mission:

 Troop-leading procedures and the MDMP are vital

to the preparation of executable plans and must be fully

understood at all levels of command.

 Engineers must proactively develop a security plan that

integrates maneuver units with engineers in an urban

environment to take advantage of the maneuver units’

ability to observe larger areas at greater distances than

the engineers.

 Planning rally points near project sites allows equipment to be staged off-site and reduces the number of

vehicles exposed to anti-Iraqi force attacks.

 Prefabrication of rebar mats and forms limits the time

Soldiers are exposed on-site.

 Control measures during the MDMP must be incorporated

into the security plan to mitigate the stress on site security

caused by civilians on the battlefield.

Conclusion

During the repair of the three road craters, Task Force

Black Diamonds placed 144 cubic yards of concrete

over a five-day period. The concrete was given three

days to cure before the route was reopened to military and

civilian traffic. It has remained open ever since without needing

repairs, despite being struck by additional mortar rounds. The

task force continues to provide construction engineering and

chemical force protection to Iraqi army, Iraqi police, and U.S.

Army units within the supported area of responsibility in both

complex urban terrain and more rural locations.

Black Diamonds—With Pride!

For additional information, or to get a copy of this article

that discusses in more detail the specific tactics, techniques,

and procedures used by the task force, contact the battalion

via Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) or

contact <James.L.Moore@us.army.smil.mil>.

Lieutenant Colonel Landry is the commander of the 92d

Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy). He holds a doctorate

in civil engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,

Troy, New York, and is a professional engineer in Virginia.

Major Adams is the battalion operations officer of the 92d

Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy). He holds a degree in

general studies and psychology from Washington State

University, Pullman, Washington.

Captain Brown is the commander of Charlie Company,

365th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy). He holds a

bachelor’s in agricultural and biological engineering

from Pennsylvania State University, University Park,

Pennsylvania, and is currently working on a master’s in

environmental engineering at his alma mater.

A Task Force Black Diamonds

Soldier uses a float to finish

the repair of a crater after the

vibrating and screeding

process.
18 Engineer July-September 2005

National Training Center

(NTC)

SWEAT

By Lieutenant Colonel Thomas H. Magness and Major James

Ahearn

The status of infrastructure, and the ability to show

improvement, is critical to the success of the mission in Iraq

and Afghanistan. NTC is addressing this issue by preparing

units to assess infrastructural deficiencies and develop plans

to remedy critical shortfalls. By aggressively seeking to

determine the current state of infrastructure through assessment and interaction with local leaders—and then using all

available assets to design and implement solutions—units

will be successful in achieving their intended effects and

reaching overall strategic goals.

SWEAT Assessment

Although there are variations among units, NTC defines

“SWEAT” as the status of sewage, water, electricity, academics,

and trash. The SWEAT assessment simply provides a format

for assessing these conditions. During reception, staging,

onward movement, and integration (RSOI), rotational units

are given the task of performing an assessment of actual

facilities on Fort Irwin, such as the sewage treatment facility

and the electrical distribution system. As the rotation

progresses, units should continue this process by conducting

an assessment of each town in the area of operations.

Many Soldiers are daunted by the task of performing an

evaluation of something such as a power plant, but there are

tools available to help. One such product is the SWEAT Smart

Book, a tool produced by the Sidewinder team in collaboration

with the United States Military Academy faculty, the United

States Army Engineer School, and the United States Army

Corps of Engineers® (USACE). The Smart Book is an easy-touse guide that identifies the basics of facility operations and

provides checklists of information required for further analysis.

The SWEAT Smart Book and other associated infrastructure

assessment tools are available for distribution through the

Sidewinder Team at NTC or online at the Sidewinder

home page <http://www.irwin.army.mil/Units/Operations+

Group/Sidewinder>. (Select “Resources” from the menu.)

In addition to assessments conducted by the unit, a great

deal of information is available through local leaders and public

officials. This information is also helpful because it indicates

the most pressing needs as seen by those who are the end

users of each system. By addressing critical needs first, coalition

forces are able to demonstrate their resolve to improve the

living conditions of the average citizen. Doing so eventually

robs the insurgency of its legitimacy. Training units are able

to conduct assessments, develop plans and specifications,

and project scopes of work and initiate contracting measures

for proposed infrastructure projects.

Professional Assistance

NTC and USACE have recently teamed up to provide even

more realistic training by deploying a Forward Engineer

Support Team (FEST) during rotations. This team, comprised

of USACE military and civilian personnel, works in support of

the brigade. The team’s professional background provides

the ability to produce comprehensive design work, to include

identification of resources required for each project. In addition,

the FEST brings with it a Tele-Engineering Kit, which enables

the team to simultaneously interact with research and design

facilities worldwide, bringing the full weight of USACE to the

fight.

A recent addition to the NTC rotation is Soldiers from the

engineer prime power battalion. Working in conjunction with

the FEST, the battalion is trained and ready to enable the

brigade combat team (BCT) to assess and improve electrical

infrastructure in the forward operating bases (FOBs) and the

supported town populations.
July-September 2005 Engineer 19

Project Management

BCTs are often challenged to fully leverage the engineer

capabilities within their ranks and to make any meaningful

progress with regard to infrastructure and project delivery

during a 14-day rotation. While the BCT includes a variety of

units with the requisite skills and tools (SWEAT Smart Books,

FESTs, and prime power members; trained combat and

construction engineers; and civil affairs specialists), they are

generally best served by a dedicated organization with the

leadership and staff support to meet the monumental tasks

associated with reconstruction.

As trainers for the special troops battalions (STBs)—or

brigade troops battalions (BTBs) in our current doctrine—

within the BCT, the Sidewinders continue to take observations

from the theater and apply them to the training scenario and

with NTC rotational units. Currently, deployed BTBs often

have the lead role for reconstruction within their supported

BCTs, leveraging the capabilities of its staff and leaders for

what is among the top operational priorities for our forces.

Deployed units have determined the magnitude of a

reconstruction program with hundreds of individual projects

valued in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

Requirements for work inspections, pay agent duties, and

military and civilian liaison responsibilities across the brigade’s

area of responsibility are worthy of focused (command)

oversight. As the doctrinal command and control node for

attached units such as FESTs, prime power, civil affairs, and

engineers, STBs/BTBs are often in the best position to build

and lead the team to address the infrastructure needs, in

coordination with the Iraqi government leadership. The

Sidewinders have developed a suite of tools to assist those

units that are assigned the reconstruction/project management

mission, to include staff products and project management

tools.

Summary

As units aggressively seek to employ all available skills

and tools in the collection and analysis of relevant

information—and then develop coherent, achievable goals—

they find themselves postured for success in the battle for the

hearts and minds of the local population. By showing tangible

progress in the daily life of average citizens through steady,

meaningful improvements to critical infrastructure, coalition

forces will earn their trust and respect, denying the enemy the

same. This is just as important to success at NTC as it is in Iraq

and Afghanistan.

Lieutenant Colonel Magness is the Senior Maneuver

Support Trainer, Sidewinder 07, at the National Training

Center, Fort Irwin, California. He previously served as the

District Commander for the Detroit District, United States

Army Corps of Engineers. He is a graduate of the United

States Military Academy and holds a master’s in civil

engineering from the University of Texas.

Major Ahearn was the Assistant Brigade Engineer Trainer,

Sidewinder 03B, from 2000 to 2005. He was recently selected

for the civil affairs branch and began his new functional

area training at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in June 2005.

He received his commission through Officer Candidate School

at Fort Benning, Georgia.

A USACE FEST conducts an assessment in Medina Wasl, a mock Iraqi training

village at NTC.
20 Engineer July-September 2005

Sergeant First Class (SFC) Wayne

J. Reinhardt was recently chosen

as the Military Fire Officer of the

Year by the Department of the Army. SFC

Reinhardt, recognized for his dedication

to mission accomplishment, was nominated by his supervisor. He first won

the Northwest Region Military Fire

Officer title, then was nominated for and

won the Army Military Fire Officer title,

and finally was nominated for the

Department of Defense Military Fire

Officer of the Year award.

SFC Reinhardt was officially

presented the Northwest Region Military

Fire Officer of the Year award at the

Department of Defense Fire and

Emergency Services Training Conference held from 11-16 August 2005.

As a senior training developer and

writer for the Army’s firefighters at the

United States Army Engineer School,

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, SFC

Reinhart ensures that all firefighting

equipment and training manuals are

first-rate for Army firefighters. He has

managed and developed multiple training

products to support the Army’s training

efforts for both individual firefighters

and firefighting units, to include producing two manuals six months ahead of

schedule without compromising quality.

He serves as the voice for Active Army

military firefighters, bringing current

firefighting issues to the International

Association of Fire Chiefs working group

sessions. Selected to review new equipment training for future firefighters on the

newly developed Tactical Fire Fighting

Truck (TFFT) and verify the training

materials, SFC Reinhardt provided

significant input during this process.

SFC Reinhardt was recognized for

many outstanding achievements in

several of the positions he has held,

including United States Army Engineer

School Liaison for all Active Army,

United States Army Reserve, and Army

National Guard firefighters; shift

supervisor at the Louis F. Garland Fire

Academy, Goodfellow Air Force Base,

Texas; Active Duty Unit Advisor to 15

Ohio Army National Guard and Reserve

units activated during Operation Iraqi

Freedom; Chief Fire Inspector at Camp

Doha, Kuwait; and Senior Firefighter on

the Flatiron Air Ambulance teams at Fort

Rucker, Alabama.

SFC Reinhardt has served more than

18 years as an Army firefighter and has

volunteered at local fire departments. He

currently volunteers at the Duke Fire

Protection District, where he trains local

volunteer fire district members to

National Fire Protection Association

(NFPA) and Missouri standards. In

addition, he volunteered as a firefighter

for five years at the Barker Volunteer Fire

Department, Barker, New York.

SFC Reinhardt has also volunteered

for the Christmas in April program in

The Army’s Top Firefighter

By Ms. Cheryl Green

San Angelo, Texas, and has rebuilt and

repaired homes for the Habitat for

Humanity program, where he helped

organize two teams to repair two homes

in two days.

SFC Reinhardt is a certified Master

Army Instructor and Master Air Force

Instructor, who has shared valuable

knowledge with his students over the

years. He is a highly skilled and competent

fire officer who continuously pursues

knowledge in the firefighting field.

Ms. Green is a contributing editor

for Engineer. She also edits training

and doctrine publications for the

Directorate of Training and Leader

Development, United States Army

Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood,

Missouri. She holds a bachelor’s in

computer information systems from

Northwestern State University,

Natchitoches, Louisiana.

Sergeant First Class Wayne J. Reinhardt, Army Military Fire Officer

of the Year

Photo by Cheryl Green
July-September 2005 Engineer 21

Representatives from Pierce® Manufacturing, Incorporated, and the Department of the Army,including the Commanding General of the 89th

Regional Readiness Command, presented the 406th Engineer

Fire Fighting Detachment with a new M1142 Tactical Fire

Fighting Truck (TFFT) on 29 January 2005, at the Army Reserve

Center in Salina, Kansas. The TFFT is engineered like no other

vehicle in use by the military today. It combines the superior

mobility of the Army heavy expanded-mobility tactical truck

(HEMTT) with the advanced firefighting capabilities of

Pierce fire apparatus. The result is a multifunctional vehicle

that is ready to deploy in almost any terrain and combat

five types of fires/hazards: wildland; structural (limited to

two stories or less); petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POL)

and hazardous materials (HAZMAT); tactical vehicle; and

aircraft crashes.1

By Specialist Judith D. DaCosta

The development of the TFFT adds another dimension to

what Pierce offers to the fire service and the U.S. military.

Pierce technology demonstrates how this firefighting apparatus

can help first responders in domestic communities as well as

worldwide. Many Reservists are full-time civilian firefighters

who use Pierce equipment in their hometown fire departments

and—now—on deployment. This is a unique feature that no

other company can say about its equipment.

The new TFFT, which was on display during the presentation, was referred to as a product of dedication and of

great benefit to the military. More than 7,000 employees of

Pierce Manufacturing and Oshkosh® Truck Corporation have

taken great care and pride in providing Reservists with the

finest firefighting truck in the world.

In addition to the presentation of the new TFFT, the

ceremony highlighted the achievements of the 323d Engineer

Fire Fighting Detachment, whose members were

recognized in November 2004 for rescuing injured

Soldiers from a downed Chinook helicopter in Al

Fallujah, Iraq. The 323d unit members were also

recognized for the completion of a week-long TFFT

training course.

Specialist DaCosta is the unit administrator of the

203d Mobile Public Affairs Detachment. She has

completed the journalism course at the Defense Information School in Maryland and is majoring in

English at Wichita State University.

Endnote

1

 Major Mollie Pearson and Mr. Mike Bonomolo,

“The Future Army Tactical Fire Fighting Truck,”

Engineer, January-March 2005, pp 59-61.

New Tactical Fire Fighting Truck

The M1142 Tactical Fire Fighting Truck in action
to bring to the forefront the application

of freedom of action and force protection

as disciplines that not only have a

unique jurisdiction demanding a unique

expertise but clearly recognize the

evolving nature of warfare as we move

from an Army based on a linear model to

one adept at working in a nonlinear,

noncontiguous environment that also

includes the simultaneous conduct of

decisive, stability, and support

operations. The maneuver enhancement

brigade (MEB)—currently being

developed in concept by the United

States Army Maneuver Support Center,

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and on

the ground at Fort Lewis, Washington

with the provisional 555th Maneuver

Enhancement Brigade (formerly the

555th Combat Engineer Group)—will

provide the UEx, joint force, or mulinational commander with a tailored,

flexible, versatile force that is adept at

fusing the elements of freedom of action

and force protection, thus minimizing

seams arising through stove pipe

approaches and providing a linkage

to the emerging Protection Joint

Functional Concept. Additionally, it can

fill a role as a force provider for nuclear,

biological, and chemical (NBC); air

defense; military police; and engineer

assets, as well as a rear area command

when properly augmented.

Characteristics

The MEB is a tailored, combined

arms force. Aside from its

headquarters element and the

organic communications and logistics

22 Engineer July-September 2005

As our Army becomes a more

modular force, it will no longer

be tied to a divisional structure

and can assemble a force based on the

situation. Indeed, it is clear that the Army

is moving rapidly to transform the

existing divisional brigade combat teams

(BCTs) into the new structures and

creating new ones such as the “4th BCT”

in several divisions. The current main

effort is on developing units of action

(UAs)—heavy, infantry, and Stryker

BCTs that are stand-alone organizations

purportedly tailored to the way they

fight—with a nod toward the flexible

two- and three-star-level units of employment (UEx) that will serve as the

primary warfighting headquarters.

 Across the rest of the Army, elements

are also transforming to support this

more modular approach by creating

support brigades that are essential to the

success of the force. What was formerly

their division or corps predecessors are

rapidly becoming sustainment brigades

(division support commands/corps

support groups), fire brigades (division/

corps artillery brigades) or aviation

brigades (division/corps aviation

brigades). These support brigades—

though more flexible and modernized and

equipped with more robust command,

control, communications, computers,

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR)—are in character the

same as their ancestor units.

There is one support UA, however,

that is truly groundbreaking. It not only

has no formal antecedent—it really is a

horse of a different color—but it looks

elements that form the basis for commanding, controlling, and supporting

the brigade, the MEB is a mission,

enemy, terrain and weather, troops and

support available, time available, and

civil considerations (METT-TC)–

dependent organization. It leverages

emerging modular principles and the

“plug-and-play” nature of developing

forces to apply the right force for the

mission. Typically, but not exclusively,

the MEB is composed of engineer,

military police, chemical, air defense, civil

affairs, and other units that routinely

function together during protection,

stability, and support operations. As

necessary, the situation may dictate the

assignment of maneuver or other types

of units to the MEB. These forces may

or may not be part of the MEB at home

station, but will be assigned as

necessary. For example, at Fort Lewis,

the 555th includes a chemical decontamination battalion, a corps wheeled

combat engineer battalion, and a combat

heavy engineer battalion, as well as

potentially some other units, to include

an air defense artillery battalion. This

presents some challenges since the

cohesiveness found in the more fixed

BCT organizations is not currently inherent in the MEB; the MEB will need to

develop the procedures to rapidly and

effectively integrate units from across all

Army components.

The MEB is a networked force.

Expected to operate over long distances

and throughout an expanded battlespace, the MEB will have robust C4ISR

in order to ensure seamless horizontal

By Colonel Christopher J. Toomey

The Maneuver Enhancement Brigade

A Horse of a Different

Color
Additionally, the 555th is fully cognizant

that its subordinate units may be

individually committed to current operations. This is validated since one of

its battalions is already deployed to

Afghanistan. Currently, the 555th

consists of a diverse mix of engineer and

chemical forces and is expecting the

assignment of air defense artillery units

as they relocate to Fort Lewis.

To focus its efforts, the 555th is

concentrating on providing freedom of

action through line-of-communication

clearance and security, construction and

maintenance, and movement control. In

the area of force protection, it is examining securing critical facilities and

infrastructure, NBC defense and mitigation, and command and control for

internment facilities. Additionally, it is

exploring the MEB’s role in civil-military

operations, as well as limited offensive

and defensive operations. Working

through a series of exercises virtually

supported at Fort Lewis, the 555th is

gaining insight into the desired composition of the end-state MEB, while

learning how to operate as an MEB with

the forces in hand.

 The MEB concept was recently

explored during Exercise Eagle Talon, a

command post exercise held at Fort

Campbell, Kentucky. The 555th served

as an MEB as part of a UEx operating

with various UAs. Charged with command and control of force protection

across the UEx and area of operationwide freedom of action, the MEB

demonstrated that it could control a wide

variety of forces as it provided the

required level of freedom of action and

force protection across the area of

operation.

Additional Challenges

I

n managing any change, there are

challenges that require attention.

The continued development of the

MEB as an effective force is no different.

The MEB concept has a harmonizing

effect across multiple branches. Yet, it

goes against a tradition of having pure

functional brigades—such as engineer,

military police, chemical, and air defense

artillery—that typically maintained

July-September 2005 Engineer 23

and vertical integration and full

situational understanding.

The MEB is joint in nature. The MEB

fills a void that is not unique to Army

forces and represents an exclusive joint

capability that is not found among the

other services that are oriented along

more functional lines. Clearly, the MEB

can operate within a joint task force and

is ideal in the event of stability and

support operations.

Forming the Provisional MEB

The 555th and Fort Lewis were a

logical choice for the initial MEB.

Clearly, Fort Lewis is an installation that is developing a culture of

transformation. With two Stryker BCTs

already formed and the Stryker-based

2d Cavalry Regiment in transition, the

community at Fort Lewis is emerging as

a place with well-defined business

practices to manage change. This includes exigent facilities such as the

Mission Support Training Facility, a

great resource for training and supporting staffs and units. Recently

redeployed from Operation Iraqi

Freedom, the 555th task organization

represented a mix of engineer and

chemical units that was inherently

geared toward maneuver enhancement.

Indeed, while operating with the

4th Infantry Division during Operation

Iraqi Freedom, the 555th provided maneuver support and force protection for the

division and operated along many of the

same lines expected of an MEB. Additionally, the great diversity of echelonabove-division units at Fort Lewis

provided a pool of units to draw from in

developing the MEB.

 Granted provisional status in October

2004, the 555th is evolving its missions

and mission-essential task list (METL)

to reflect expected battlefield tasks and

has embarked on a rigorous training

program to develop its expertise in

command and control to provide freedom

of action and force protection. All along,

the unit is staying linked with the United

States Army Training and Doctrine

Command (TRADOC) proponent—the

Maneuver Support Center—to provide

feedback and lessons learned.

resident expertise at the corps and

division levels. The MEB does not take

the place of the functional brigades nor

their expertise that is applied at the

broader units of employment-operational

(UEy) level and can be applied at the UEx

level if the situation dictates. All

branches that are prime candidates for

inclusion in the MEB need to look at

how they can best evolve their forces to

work as part of the MEB.

Another challenge is developing

leadership. The MEB will require leaders

who are broad-based and can operate

across heretofore branch-specific

functional lines. Developing these

leaders from typically stove-piped career

paths is a challenge that must be

addressed as the MEB concept progresses. No single functional branch has

supremacy; rather, it is essential that

the best leaders be selected for key

assignments.

Toward the Future

The development and establishment of MEBs will providecommanders with a versatile

combat force that can be tailored to a

wide spectrum of operations. Ideally

suited to meet requirements in the

contemporary operating environment,

the MEB is a key supporting UA that

will enhance the ability of both maneuver

BCTs and the other support brigades and

ensure that our Army is successful in

current and future operations.

Colonel Toomey commanded the

555th Combat Engineer Group and

555th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade

(Provisional) from 2003 to 2005. He

currently commands the Afghanistan

Engineer District in Kabul.

Many post offices will not deliver mail

without a street address. Please

contact us to update your mailing

address if the one we are using for

you does not include a street address.

Include the old address and your

telephone number, as well as the

corrected address, and e-mail to

<engineer@wood.army.mil>.

Attention Units!
24 Engineer July-September 2005

Early this year, Soldiers of the Army National Guard’s

861st Engineer Company trained at Camp Shelby, in

Mississippi, for their company’s deployment to Iraq.

The unit’s mission there would be new and dangerous. These

engineers are normally heavy-equipment operators and

mechanics and are trained to build bridges and airfields,

maintain sewer and water systems, and restore electricity. But

in Iraq, many military operations require combat engineers.

They find explosive devices and remove and safely detonate

them as part of an effort to clear roadways. In addition, they

impede enemy movement by using explosives to create

obstacles.

The training the Soldiers received included clearing terrain

obstacles, opening routes for armored fighting vehicles, and

clearing minefields. Due to the explosive hazards facing our

troops in Southwest Asia, extensive training was given on

safely disposing of unexploded ordnance (UXO) and

detonating booby traps. Defense against nuclear, biological,

and chemical (NBC) weapon threats was also included in the

training schedule. To make the training at Camp Shelby as

realistic as possible, simulated Iraqi villages were carved into

the lush fields in a section of the training site. Trained role

players acted as villagers, milling about and speaking Arabic.

Adding to the sense of reality, the women covered their heads

with scarves while some men toted AK-47s.

For additional training, the entire unit went to the National

Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, California, to prepare for

its upcoming mission in Iraq. NTC is the only instrumented

training facility in the world that is suitable for force-on-force

and live-fire training. This training helped ensure that Soldiers

were adequately prepared to deploy into a combat theater.

The training received simulated the tempo, range, and intensity

of current and future conflicts. The depth and width of the

battlespace gave the 861st the unique opportunity to exercise

all of its elements in a realistic environment. The unit’s training

included the requirement to communicate over extended

distances, exercise casualty evacuation,

and navigate in difficult terrain with few

distinguishable roads. Other environmental conditions, such as a daily

temperature range of 40 to 50 degrees,

winds over 45 knots, and constant

exposure to the sun helped prepare the

Soldiers of the 861st for what to expect

upon arriving in Iraq.

The training at Camp Shelby helped

the 861st Engineer Company unit go

from working behind the lines to the

front lines, clearing the way for the rest.

And the training at NTC stressed every

system and each Soldier to their limit,

allowing the Soldiers to assess their

endurance level and how prepared they

were—physically and mentally—to go

into combat.

Sergeant Cervone is a public affairs

specialist with the Rhode Island

National Guard.

The 861st Engineer Company

Prepares for Deployment

By Sergeant John Cervone

Soldiers of the 861st Engineer Company train to locate and destroy landmines

and other explosive devices.
July-September 2005 Engineer 25

Footprints of Heroes: From

the American Revolution to the

War in Iraq by Robert Skimin.

Prometheus Books, Amherst,

New York, 2005, 328 pages,

ISBN 1-59102-281-9, list $26

(hardcover).

“The word hero became

practically a dirty word during

and after the Vietnam conflict.

The same was true for

patriotism. Together the words

were castigated and nearly

removed from popular lexicon. Athletes and rock stars were

presented as heroes, even if the most heroic act they ever

performed was staying out of jail, maligning the true meaning

of the word for our young.”1

We live in a society that is inundated by the media and

popular culture and—as a result—influence our personal,

political, religious, and ethical beliefs. As Robert Skimin asserts

in the above quote from his book Footprints of Heroes: From

the American Revolution to the War in Iraq, they have also

influenced society’s image of the hero. Too often, the word

hero comes with an image of cultural idols. For many of our

youth, heroes are measured by the number of albums sold or

the number of sports records broken, not by the true measures

of heroism—courage, honor, pride, responsibility, and most

importantly, self-sacrifice. It took an infamous act—

11 September 2001—to remind America that freedom is a gift

that must be earned and appreciated, and with this reminder

the image of the hero resurged. We were reminded that those

who sacrifice themselves for our freedom every day, and who

too often are forgotten or taken for granted, are the true heroes

of our society—our firefighters, our policemen, and of course,

our military heroes.

In his book, Skimin takes a unique look at military heroes

throughout history, many of whom are unknown to most

people. Through anecdotes and vignettes, Skimin tells the

stories of the heroic acts of these military men and women.

Skimin revisits the lives of our well-known heroes, such as

George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt,

George S. Patton, Douglas MacArthur, Audie Murphy, and

John McCain, just to name a few. And while it is important to

know and be reminded of their accomplishments, the stories

that stand out and overpower this book are the stories of the

men and women whose names are not remembered or

recognized for their heroic acts, such as the average Soldier of

the Revolutionary War, the farmer who put aside his

responsibilities at home to take up arms for freedom, the

drummer boys who beat cadence and orders in the Union

Army, and the nurses who worked on the battlefields. Even

Bob Hope, who brought laughter to American troops through

every conflict from World War II to Desert Storm, is paid tribute

to in this book. Throughout military history, there have been

thousands of unknown heroes who put aside their personal

needs in order to provide us with the freedom that we enjoy

today—people without whom our well-known heroes and

leaders would not be known. For in the words of General

Norman Schwarzkopf, “It doesn’t take a hero to order men

into battle. It takes a hero to be one of those men who goes

into battle.” 2

And who could forget our engineer heroes. The paths

cleared by the Army engineers throughout history brought

victory and made heroes out of average men and women. Engineers have played an integral part in the fight for freedom.

Engineers like those who took a struggling South Vietnam and

constructed the ports of Cam Ranh Bay, Nha Trang, Qui Nhon,

Vung Tau, and Vung Ro. Engineers who constructed millions

of storage facilities, miles of roads, millions of square yards of

airfields and heliports, and numerous base camps during

conflicts. And certainly Skimin did not neglect to pay tribute

to Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith of Bravo Company,

11th Engineer Battalion, whose actions killed 20 to 50 enemy

soldiers, allowing our wounded Soldiers to be evacuated and

saving surrounding elements and possibly 100 American lives.

His heroic actions were recognized on 4 April 2005, when he

became the first service person in Operation Iraqi Freedom to

be awarded the Medal of Honor—Lead the Way.

If there ever was any question as to what defines a hero,

Footprints of Heroes answers that question. Skimin—a former

paratrooper, Army aviator, and artillery officer—presents

American military history through the lives of its heroes.

Although his story does not overlook the famous, it is mostly

about the ambiguous, unknown fighting men and women of

yesterday and today. It is a tribute to those who sacrificed for

us, and it serves as a source of inspiration for us and for future

generations of heroes.

Endnotes

1

Robert Skimin. Footprints of Heroes: From the American

Revolution to the War in Iraq. Prometheus Books, 2005.

2

 H. Norman Schwarzkopf, Peter Petre, editor. It Doesn’t

Take a Hero: The Autobiography of General H. Norman

Schwarzkopf. Bantam, 1993.

Mrs. Groth is an instructional design specialist

Department of the Army intern, working with the Directorate

of Common Leader Training, United States Army Maneuver

Support Center, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. A former

contributing editor for Engineer, she holds a bachelor’s and

master’s in English from Cameron University and is currently

working on a master’s in learning systems design and

development from the University of Missouri-Columbia.

Book Review

By Mrs. Susan Groth
26 Engineer July-September 2005

The 1438th Engineer Company

(Multirole Bridge), Missouri Army

National Guard, recently was

tasked to recover (delaunch) a MabeyJohnson Compact 200 Bridge System

spanning a canal on an alternate supply

route in Iraq. This was the unit’s first

recovery mission of this magnitude. The

1438th was introduced to this bridge

system while on mobilization training at

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and

gained additional technical training from

members of the Marine company it

replaced in Iraq.

The recovery mission was based

entirely on the unit’s knowledge of

construction. Army National Guard

Soldiers are unique in that they possess

civilian skills and expertise in a myriad

of fields. The applicability of these skills

has played an integral role in the success

of this unit. The crew chiefs were

instrumental in the evolving technical

development of the recovery plan, along

with the other senior leadership, who led

the unit’s technical development by

analyzing construction methods to

accomplish the recovery successfully.

Effective tool designs and skills in

machining and welding proved to be the

most valuable assets in the endeavor.

The unit developed a push-pull bar

assembly that attaches to the transom

of the tail bay and connects to a piece of

heavy equipment—an excavator, a dozer,

or a common bridge transporter—which

is used to push or pull steel over a gap.

The members of the support platoon not

only provide heavy equipment and

maintenance support but also welding

and machinist skills while on-site. These

By Sergeant First Class Pete Quinton and Second Lieutenant Maureen Wells

are all essential skills to any bridge

mission.

As the unit arrived on-site, its first

task was to establish force protection.

Simultaneously, the noncommissioned

officer in charge (NCOIC) and platoon

sergeant began directing and staging

equipment and assigning details in order

to occupy the area of operation. The

work began immediately with teams

preparing for 24-hour operations.

A soldier from the 1438th Engineer Company cuts stubborn bolts with a

cutting torch.

Photo by Sergeant First Class Pete Quinton

Photo by Sergeant First Class Pete Quinton
July-September 2005 Engineer 27

Members performed earthwork and

prepared to dismantle the bridge—

removing deck bolts, staging cribbing

and rollers, placing jacks to lift the bridge

off its bearings, and preparing construction of the launching nose. The

entire mission was accomplished in less

than 72 hours.

The bridge crews worked long shifts,

and the work was very physically

demanding. Teamwork, unity, and a

common objective were essential in a

mission of this magnitude. But

successfully accomplishing the mission

instilled a sense of pride, which is the

essence of this bridge unit.

Soldiers stack decking from the dismantled bridge on a truck.

Sergeant First Class Quinton is

assigned to the 194th Engineer Brigade

Public Affairs Office.

Second Lieutenant Wells, the leader

of 2d Platoon, 1438th Engineer Company, was in charge of the bridge

recovery mission, which was performed

from 7-14 March 2005 .

After successfully pulling the bridge across the canal, it is now ready to dismantle and load.

Photo by Sergeant First Class Pete Quinton

Photo by Sergeant First Class Pete Quinton
28 Engineer July-September 2005

My assignment as a reconnaissance sergeant to

the 10th Mountain Division is the first time the

unit has had a combat engineer assigned organically

to the staff as part of the S-3 section. Because of this, I have

been given the freedom to write and define my own job and

have set the groundwork for future combat engineers to step

in and fill the reconnaissance sergeant position. This article is

an overview of my duties and responsibilities and the lessons

I have learned while assigned to this position.

Since I am organic to the battalion, the staff has relied on

me to plan their engineer support operations. This makes it

very convenient for the S-3 and assistant S-3 to get answers

quickly and to better include engineers in the scheme of

maneuver. Previously, the platoon leader, acting as the task

force engineer, was the main component for answering the

task force’s questions and assisting in planning. In this sense,

I’ve become the deputy task force engineer. A primary concern

I have had with this is that the infantry does not prioritize

tasks the same as engineers. My unit, the 87th Infantry

Battalion, is very responsive to my input concerning engineer

system incorporation and operational needs. This must be

communicated in a clear and concise manner, which is

something that we as staff engineers need to master. It is

important that competent staff sergeants are placed in this

position in order for the infantry to develop a positive attitude

toward engineers as a force multiplier.

During the military decision-making process (MDMP), my

primary job is to assist the S-2 in his analysis. In addition,

depending on the availability of the task force engineer, terrain

analysis is one of my areas of responsibility. I also assist with

or write the Engineer Annex to the operations order.

During operations, I’m responsible for tracking route status,

improvised explosive devices (IEDs) found or detonated,

engineer assets on the battlefield, implementation of engineer

assets, force protection, and reverse Battlefield Operating

Systems (BOSs). Another area that leads to success is knowing

things that the average combat engineer might not be familiar

with. These include the rise and fall of low-water crossings,

the amount of power required to run a forward operating base

(FOB) or a local village, the amount of spoil required to fill

HESCO® Bastions, and the number of HESCO Bastions

required to build fortifications or walls. Additionally, it is

beneficial to be familiar with the newest digital Army systems.

In this job, you must display the professionalism and

expertise associated with the Engineer Regiment daily. You

must also be able to think on your feet. For example, when the

task force S-3 asks you how to reduce the blast radius of a

simulated IED, you must have an answer for him. In this

particular instance, I have developed a system that has now

become the division standard for simulated IED strikes.

While deployed to the Joint Readiness Training Center,

Fort Polk, Louisiana, where we implemented the newest unit

of action (UA) system with all the pieces together for the first

time, I learned several lessons. The first lesson is that you’re

not guaranteed an engineer platoon leader since the engineers

belong to the brigade and not directly to the task force.

Therefore, you need to automatically plan on being the engineer

who will be on the ground with the task force. What you need

should be planned and resourced before you depart for training

or combat. Ensure that you have an assigned area to work in

the tactical operations center (TOC). You should also include

your job description and duties in the tactical operations center

standing operating procedures (TOCSOP). I recommend

adding the following to the TOCSOP:

Reconnaissance Sergeant

 Advise the commander.

 Track the status of all routes.

 Coordinate, track, and make recommendations on force

protection measures.

 Assist the S-2.

 Oversee the cache collection point.

 Track enemy IED activity.

Unit of Action

Reconnaissance Sergeant

By Staff Sergeant Andrew J. Way
July-September 2005 Engineer 29

Within the TOC, I was required to track current operations,

plan for future operations, and provide technical expertise and

assistance with force protection on the FOB. Within the FOB,

there will be a cache collection point for captured enemy

supplies and equipment. Various ideas have been expressed

about the responsibility of the engineer on the ground and

the requirements for this storage area. As a force protection

measure, it is in the best interest of the task force to ensure

that an engineer or explosive ordnance disposal (EOD)

technician routinely checks the storage of items and—prior to

implementation of the site—inspects it to ensure proper

storage. All items need to be treated with the same care as is

given to friendly munitions. An inventory should be kept and

continuously updated. Prior to execution, a plan should be

put in place that details individual responsibilities. I am

currently writing an SOP for my unit for this operation.

As an engineer assigned to this position, it is vital that you

are not assigned to fill one of the previous roles established in

the S-3 shop. I have seen other battalions use their engineer

as the land and ammunitions noncommissioned officer (NCO).

This doesn’t allow that individual to assist the battalion and

task force engineer with the MDMP. His expertise as an engineer

is not being implemented. The position and title on the modified

table of organization and equipment (MTOE) is reconnaissance sergeant. I always try to keep that in mind when I

accept a new responsibility. In order to keep my job separate,

I have had to be very selective in my acceptance of responsibilities. I work for the S-3 and the S-3 noncommissioned

officer in charge (NCOIC)—not for the engineer company.

Otherwise, I have been given lots of freedom to develop the

duties and responsibilities of the reconnaissance sergeant

position.

I hope that this information will help fellow engineers who

fill this position. I look forward to hearing from other engineer

reconnaissance sergeants who may have developed additional

tactics, techniques, and procedures. They may have better

ideas or better ways to implement the engineer into the battalion

operations cell. When I hand this job off to the next NCO, I

want him to know his duties and responsibilities and be able

to succeed in the position.

Staff Sergeant Way is the reconnaissance sergeant for

1-87th Infantry Battalion, Fort Drum, New York. He has served

as a squad leader and team leader in the 41st Engineer

Battalion, Fort Drum; and squad leader and assault section

sergeant, 40th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division,

Baumholder, Germany. He has deployed to both Kosovo and

Iraq. A graduate of the Primary Leadership Development

Course, Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course, and

Sapper Leader Course, he is working on a degree in business

management.

T.

he challenges of the U.S. Army’s force modular

redesign are upon us, and we are addressing the

necessary changes with the grim, professional

determination of an Army at war. Our efforts to make units of

action (UAs) a reality have demanded some fundamental shifts

in our thinking about how brigade combat teams (BCTs) are

organized and how they are expected to fight. The role of

cavalry has not been spared this reexamination. One of the

latest efforts to ensure that the Officer Education System at

Fort Knox, Kentucky, remains current and relevant is the Armor

School’s recent redesign of the Cavalry Leaders Course (CLC).

 As we change our force structure, so must we also reconfigure our assumptions about who should attend the CLC.

The combined arms philosophy that underpins the logic

behind creating UAs demands that all officers, regardless of

branch, who are assigned to the BCT (UA) planning staffs or

to the reconnaissance squadrons within these brigades,

understand reconnaissance and security operations. Leaders

who attend the CLC are provided with the in-depth knowledge

of reconnaissance and security, as applied to the new

reconnaissance squadrons found in the heavy brigade combat

teams (HBCTs), infantry brigade combat teams (IBCTs), and

Stryker brigade combat teams (SBCTs). The CLC accomplishes

its learning objectives through challenging practical exercises

that test and hone the students’ understanding of doctrine;

tactics, techniques, and procedures; organizations; missions;

capabilities; and limitations of reconnaissance, surveillance,

and target acquisition (RSTA) and reconnaissance squadrons.

 The Armor School encourages CLC enrollment for all Armor

officers and extends an invitation to leaders in Infantry, Field

Artillery, Engineer, Aviation, Military Intelligence, and Signal

Corps Branches who are assigned as planners or commanders

of RSTA/cavalry organizations in the UAs. Attendance at CLC

is open to graduates of any officer career course in the grades

of first lieutenant (P) through major. Enrollment is available

through the Army Training Requirements and Resources

System (ATRRS).

The Web site for the course is at <http://www.knox.

army.mil/school/16cav/octeam.asp>. Once you are there, click

on “Student Info,” then “Cav Leader (CLC).” The point of

contact is Major James Turley. He can be reached at

<james.turley@knox.army.mil> or (502) 624-1324 or DSN

464-1324.

Major Dooley is a former Cavalry Leader’s Course

instructor/officer in charge.

The New Cavalry Leader’s Course

By Major Matthew A. Dooley
30 Engineer July-September 2005

An engineer mobile training team

(MTT) comprised of United States

Army Reserve Soldiers was deployed in support of Operation Enduring

Freedom, with a mission of building the new

Engineering Corps of the Afghan National

Army (ANA). The primary objective of the

MTT was to train the ANA soldiers in basic

combat engineer skills during a six-week

advanced individual training (AIT) and

to provide refresher training to the previous

American-trained engineering support

companies of the ANA. The secondary

objective was to train the trainers by

mentoring and guiding the ANA instructors

with a modified program of instruction (POI)

from the United States Army Engineer

School (located at Fort Leonard Wood,

Missouri).

This POI was custom-tailored to meet the needs of the ANA

with an emphasis on mine warfare, basic demolitions, and

combat construction (focused on wire obstacles and

survivability positions). This MTT directly assisted in

establishing the first ANA Engineering School (based on the

United States Army Engineer School). At the time this article

was written, ANA instructors were conducting all student

instruction, which is a positive sign that soon the new school

will be able to operate without U.S. support.

Mission Preparation

The MTT began the mission by conducting Soldier

readiness processing for two weeks at the continental

United States (CONUS) Replacement Center, Fort

Benning, Georgia. Upon completion, the MTT visited the

United States Army Engineer School for two weeks where the

team had an opportunity to meet with former MTT members.

These Soldiers did an outstanding job of preparing the team

for what to expect from the ANA.

Engineer Mobile Training Team

By Captain Eric G. Nichols

Standing Up the Afghan National Army Engineering School

Coalition activities on a Romanian qualification range
July-September 2005 Engineer 31

The team then returned to Fort

Benning for final preparations and

deployed on 8 November 2004. They

arrived at Bagram Airfield in

Afghanistan during the predawn

hours of 10 November. While waiting

for transportation, the team could hear

explosions in the distance and became

fully aware that they had indeed

arrived in a hostile-fire area. Loading

into the back of a 5-ton cargo truck,

they began the trip to the training

destination.

As the team left the airfield, they

saw the first of many minefields along

the side of the road. Scattered among

the minefields were derelict T-62 tanks,

remnants of past conflicts. Traveling

through the outer gate of the airfield,

the team entered a village that

consisted of mud and stone buildings

that bear the scars of decades of war.

The landscape was desolate and

barren and marked with hull defilade

armor fighting positions and troop

trenches. It was clear that warfare had been a way of life for

the Afghan people for many years.

The MTT spent the first month setting up quarters (general

purpose [GP], medium, tents) at the camp where they were

assigned. They inventoried training sets and prepared to

instruct the first ANA class.

Training

The first training mission was at an ANA garrison, where

the MTT conducted refresher training for two ANA

engineering companies. From 11 December 2004 to

8 January 2005, the students (officers and noncommissioned

officers [NCOs]) were very attentive and eager to learn.

Classroom discipline was maintained by the leadership of each

company, creating a positive learning environment. When

outside training was conducted, the ANA students marched

with great pride to their respective training areas. To bring

additional honor to both units, a few were selected by the

ANA leadership and the MTT to become student instructors.

These students had the distinct privilege of training their fellow

classmates, thus making the ANA more self-reliant.

 During the two weeks prior to the next refresher training,

which began on 24 January 2005, the team met its new ANA

counterparts and integrated them with the engineer POIs. From

the first day of class, ANA members served as assistant

instructors for every class.

Due to the large volume of students, the company was

divided into two groups, and a rotational class schedule was

established. On the first day of the cycle, U.S. Soldiers served

as primary instructors while ANA instructors took notes. On

the second day, the ANA instructor became the primary

instructor. At the end of each class, the U.S. instructors

conducted a review to ensure that the ANA students

understood the lesson that had been taught.

The refresher training program gradually evolved to where

an ANA instructor taught with a U.S. instructor present, while

another ANA instructor rehearsed for the next day’s class

with another U.S. instructor. By the midpoint of the training,

additional instructors had joined the training cycle. And by

the end of the refresher training, the ANA was spending more

time instructing than their U.S. counterparts. The earlier policy

of selecting exceptional students from the class to become

student instructors continued.

While instruction to the ANA engineering support

companies was being conducted, a U.S. instructor began

writing the training support packages (TSPs) for the military

occupational specialty 21B combat engineer course. He wrote

32 TSPs, of which 17 required a visual-guided training package

for support. The entire course was completed electronically

on 2 February 2005. Once the TSPs were completed, the

instructor supervised the interpreters in the translation from

English to the Dari language.

On 26 February 2005, the MTT began teaching the first 21B

AIT course. The refresher training gave the ANA instructors

an opportunity to see and use the course material; they were

now ready to conduct training with minimal assistance.

Because the AIT POI contained some new and previously

untaught material, the U.S. instructors continued with the

rotational cycle, leaving time for instructor rehearsals of the

The remains of a maintenance shop in a former Taliban headquarters
32 Engineer July-September 2005

new material. During AIT, the ANA instructors always served

as the primary instructors. The ANA instructor corps continued

to grow, and on 30 March 2005, they single-handedly

conducted the graduation ceremony.

Final Phase

After the AIT graduation, the MTT began preparations

for disengagement. During the first week of April, the

team conducted a Total Army Instructor Training

Course (TAITC) for the ANA instructors. The purpose of the

TAITC was to ensure that the ANA instructors were teaching

from the TSPs that had been prepared for them in February.

The class also introduced the ANA instructors to new

techniques for improving future classroom instruction. At the

end of the course, all the new instructors had shown remarkable

improvement.

During the second week of April, the MTT and ANA

instructors conducted an inventory of the classrooms, trainingaid containers express (CONEXs), and the office space. By

the third week of April, the MTT had completed a handover to

the ANA. The ANA team leader now had full accountability

for the entire ANA Engineering School.

Conclusion

The MTT was blessed and fortunate enough to stay out

of harm’s way. Though not making the media headlines

as often as Iraq, Afghanistan still presents a great deal

of danger for our Soldiers. During the team’s six-month stay in

Afghanistan, reports were heard of improvised explosive

devices (IEDs) exploding on the road that the team traveled

every day, and once they convoyed past several IEDs

fashioned from old mortar rounds. Team members observed

local nationals burying mines in the roadway, resulting in the

marking-off and securing of the area.

While the MTT was fortunate, the camp where they were

located experienced the devastating loss of four Soldiers who

were conducting a range reconnaissance. These Soldiers lost

their lives after their vehicle ran over an old Soviet antitank

mine. The mines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) left behind

by the Soviet occupation are unbelievable. Every time a major

rainfall occurs, more mines are revealed. During the freezeand-thaw cycles of winter, the frost heaves push up new

dangers. Two ANA personnel lost their feet after stepping on

antipersonnel mines in their “cleared” training area. To help

alleviate the problem, the MTT expanded its mission into

explosive ordnance disposal and disposed of 13 UXO,

100 badly decayed claymore-type mines, and about 30 pounds

of old Soviet-style composition cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine4 (C-4) and trinitrotoluene (TNT).

In final review, this engineer MTT –

 Trained ANA personnel to become engineers or to improve their engineering skills.

 Trained and mentored ANA instructors (officers and NCOs).

 Established the first “post-Taliban” ANA Engineering

School.

The MTT played an active role in Operation Enduring

Freedom by helping to ensure that the ANA can bring safety

and security to their own country by keeping insurgents and

terrorists from finding safe harbor in Afghanistan.

Captain Nichols serves as the executive officer and S-3 of

the 1st Battalion, 3d Brigade, 80th Training Division,

Regional Training Site-Engineer (RTS-E), Camp Dawson,

West Virginia.

An old Soviet T-34 tank along the training center range road
July-September 2005 Engineer 33

F.

or shoring up a river bank to stem flood waters, the

idea is to use sandbags that will eventually disintegrate

so they won’t have to be retrieved. But when sandbags

are going to be used to fortify a base camp in Iraq, they need

to stay intact as long as possible. Sandbag materials differ in

their resistance to the elements—especially ultraviolet

radiation. In response to reports that sandbag fortifications

have failed under the intense sunlight in Iraq, the United States

Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)

conducted a study to identify which materials maintain tensile

strength the longest under ultraviolet radiation exposure.

Tensile strength is the property most closely associated with

the material’s integrity and—when weakened—allows the bags

to break, and sand spills out.

In a simulated desert climate, ERDC’s Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) found (through

independent, certified laboratory testing) that cotton duck

material performs best. Acrylic sandbags also performed well

in the study. The complete report with test data is available at

<http://www.cecer.army.mil>. For more information, contact

Alfred Beitelman or Charles Marsh at CERL, 800-USA-CERL.

Ms. Finney is a public affairs officer for the United States

Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign,

Illinois.

By Ms. Dana L. Finney

Iraq and the Scoop on Sandbags Iraq and the Scoop on Sandbags

These sandbags, used for fortification in Iraq, failed due to

extreme exposure to ultraviolet radiation.
34 Engineer July-September 2005

When U.S. forces entered Afghanistan to strike Al

Qaeda training camps and Taliban military

installations in early October 2001, the world

witnessed unconventional applications of military force. Welltrained troops operating complex weaponry—supported by

the latest technology—hammered deadly blows against a

tough and elusive enemy. Yet, intermingled with the

sophisticated gear and tactics were American Soldiers riding

horses onto the battlefield.

Contradiction? No, that mixture of new and old remains a

reality for U.S.-led coalition tactical forces as they continue to

neutralize terrorist organizations and help Afghan citizens

rebuild their Texas-sized nation—a landlocked and resourcepoor country that has endured an unfair share of misery.

Likewise, military engineers involved throughout Operation

Enduring Freedom tackle demanding missions with their own

versions of new and old.

Survey instruments guide airfield-design teams to mark the

corners of runway concrete forms and roadway grade stake

locations with put-it-right-there precision. Hundreds of miles

away at a forward operating base (FOB), one or two Soldiers

rely on common sense and instinct to lay out a leach field for

a shower facility by trusting timeless laws of gravity and

plumbing—water flows downhill.

Three years after the first U.S. strikes in Afghanistan,

pockets of Taliban, Al Qaeda, and splinter groups remain.

Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF)-76 led the U.S. and coalition

response during a 12-month cycle that began in May 2004 and

continued to take the fight to the enemy in many remote

locations. The 109th Engineer Group and its subordinate Army

National Guard and United States Army Reserve battalions,

plus forces from coalition partner nations, served as the

headquarters for the CJTF-76.

Task Force Coyote

The 109th Engineer Group directed and supported

engineer operations at more than forty locations. The

unit borrowed from its shoulder sleeve insignia and

named the task force Coyote and provided a quick lesson to

everyone that the proper pronunciation for the wily canine’s

common name is ky-oat—never ky-oat-tee.

During their year on the ground, Task Force Coyote

engineers worked from a couple of airfields and scores of

remote sites. Missions included—

By Colonel Nancy J. Wetherill
July-September 2005 Engineer 35

 Airfield and rotary-wing ramp expansion, repair, and

maintenance.

 Base camp, facility, and infrastructure construction and

sustainment.

 Electrical, water, and sewer systems design and installation.

 Construction contracting.

 Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) for local

national construction.

 Mine clearing, demining, and route clearing.

 Road construction.

The task force picked up the engineer mission from the

416th Engineer Group. Soldiers of the 65th Engineer Battalion

formed the nucleus of the CJ7 (engineer) cell for CJTF-76, and

as its parent, the 25th Infantry Division commanded all

operations.

Priority of Engineer Effort

When the 109th Engineer Group arrived in

Afghanistan, the engineer effort consisted of

mobility, survivability, and general engineering

missions. Mobility tasks included airfield expansion, with the

construction of parking ramps and rotary-wing parking.

Survivability tasks were the construction of guard towers,

HESCO® perimeter barriers, and entry control points. General

engineering tasks included design and construction of tactical

operation centers, dining facilities, latrines, showers, and tent

platforms. These priorities are underpinned by mine and

unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearance, which is defined as a

mobility task but enables the achievement of all engineer

priorities.

During the days leading up to and including the Afghan

national presidential elections, the engineer priorities were

reconstruction, facility upgrade and maintenance, and combat

engineering. The reconstruction effort centered on the

construction of the Kandahar to Tarin Kowt road, a route that

is the lifeline for Afghans in the Oruzgan Province. Engineers

at base camps continued to upgrade life-support facilities,

and the combat engineer task of mine clearing at the two

airfields was in full swing.

After the successful presidential elections, CJTF-76

transitioned to operations intended to include the period

through the national parliamentary elections. The priority of

Afghans travel along the Tarin Kowl road as Task Force

Coyote construction crews install culverts and shape the

roadway while other Soldiers provide security.

This K-Span panel

section for the

Bagram Detainee

Facility is guided into

place with the help

of a crane and

Soldiers with tether

ropes.

Photo by Colonel Nancy J. Wetherill

Photo by Colonel Nancy J. Wetherill
36 Engineer July-September 2005

engineer effort became reconstruction, mobility, and survivability. In addition to airfield expansion, mobility tasks now

included repairing secondary roads, which were lines of

communication to outlying camps.

Provincial Reconstruction Teams

The Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) extend the

reach of the Afghan government by taking its influence

beyond its national capital in Kabul. PRTs are stabilizing

factors that help Afghans rebuild roads, drill wells, and

construct schools and police stations, while establishing

security in the region.

The U.S.-led PRT initiative builds relationships with the

Afghan people, provides needed infrastructure development,

and improves quality of life. PRTs are intended to bring security

to the sites where they are located. The teams consist of

infantry, civil affairs, engineer, medical, logistical, and United

States Aid for International Disasters (USAID) personnel and

Afghan security forces.

Task Force Coyote was responsible for the stand-up of

four PRTs, which involved construction of facilities through

contracts with local Afghan companies. The task force was

also responsible for the QA/QC of the construction and served

as the engineer representatives at six PRT sites.

Mine-Clearing/Demining

Military mine-clearing operations consisted of area

and route clearance. Standard demining and mineclearing methods were used to destroy mines and

UXO. U.S. military mine clearers adopted the demining

technique but left the mine/UXO retrieval and disposal to the

Polish or RONCO Consulting Corporation (an international

firm specializing in humanitarian demining assistance).

RONCO’s dogs and the U.S. military mine dog detachment

shortened the time needed to proof an area that had been

reduced by mechanical means.

The current inventory of mine-clearing equipment used by

the Army, coalition forces, and RONCO is state-of-the-art.

Mechanical equipment has proven to be very resistant to mine

and UXO strikes, protecting Soldiers and limiting damage to

equipment.

During their occupation, Soviets placed a number of

protective mine lines around major installations. These lines

are marked, making them easily identifiable. The Soviet minelaying technique is predictable, with a discernable pattern;

however, the Northern Alliance and Taliban fighters reseeded

many of the mines, leaving no documentation. Their lack of

mine emplacement knowledge adds to the danger for military

mine clearers.

Road Construction

The construction of the Kandahar to Tarin Kowt road

marked the first major U.S. military road construction

in Afghanistan. The road—from Kandahar City

through the Hindu Kush Mountains to the city of Tarin Kowt—

was a joint effort with USAID, the United Nations Office of

Project Services (UNOPS), and the U.S. military. USAID

provided the funding; UNOPS contracted the placement of

base course material and double bituminous surface treatment

(DBST); and Task Force Coyote did the surveying, the

placement of culverts, and the construction of the roadbed to

the subbase surface.

The first base camp, FOB Tiger, was constructed in two

weeks. Work was performed throughout the year by a

company-plus of combat heavy engineers. Security was

provided by troops from the 3d Brigade, the 25th Infantry

Photo by Colonel Nancy J. Wetherill

A Soldier from a military

mine dog detachment

works with his dog to

find and mark potential

explosive devices.
July-September 2005 Engineer 37

Division, and Afghan security forces. The region is considered

a birthplace of the Taliban, and remnant fighters remain in the

area. By mid-November, FOB Tiger was moved farther down

along the road, and no enemy contact occurred after an initial

attack.

Challenges

As a landlocked country, Afghanistan has few roads

and even fewer paved highways, so moving troops,

equipment, and materials is a challenge in itself. Local

national transportation support was used for surface movement of supplies and equipment from the Port of Karachi,

Pakistan, and in and around the combined joint operation area.

It could take weeks for items to arrive, and worker strikes at

the port were common, sometimes delaying shipments for

months. United States Air Force aircraft and a global delivery

service ferried some critical items.

On occasion, insurgent attacks on civilian Afghan delivery

trucks (known as jingle trucks because of the decorative metal

tassels hanging from the bottom of the truck frames that jingled

when the trucks moved) resulted in damaged or destroyed

equipment. In some areas of the country, the jingle truck drivers

would request U.S. escort through known trouble spots.

The shortage of plumbing and electrical supplies and good

quality lumber often caused long delays in completing

missions. Non-U.S. plywood is very flimsy—sometimes

requiring a doubling of materials to meet standards. Electrical

and plumbing materials just did not exist in Afghanistan, so as

an expedient partial solution, a team was sent to Germany to

locally purchase the needed items.

Accomplishments

I

n spite of the challenges Task Force Coyote personnel

faced, they were able to accomplish several significant

missions:

 Construction of parking ramps and the rotary-wing parking

at the two airfields were the largest concrete missions. But

before the concrete could be placed, mine clearing and

extensive site preparations were required.

 Two detainee facilities were the largest buildings constructed. The facilities included showers, toilets, administrative offices, and community and isolation cells.

 Base camp construction and upgrades consumed many

hours of labor, resulting in the construction of more than

150 tent platforms on 45 separate base camps and more

than 85,000 square feet of administrative buildings.

 With the use of U.S., Polish, and RONCO personnel, more

than 627 acres have been reduced and 508 acres proofed.

The occasional mine strike on mechanical equipment did

not result in any injury to personnel.

Conclusion

The Operation Enduring Freedom mission for this

engineer group headquarters was nearly textbook in

its task organization and operation. The CJTF-76

commanding general allowed Task Force Coyote to effectively

use engineer assets throughout the combined joint operation

area. Keeping engineer units under the control of an engineer

headquarters maximized engineer capabilities available to the

command. Coyote engineers from five countries came together

for a common cause. They maintained flexibility, while executing

thorough staff planning. The result: An overwhelmingly

successful, 12-month engineer mission.

Colonel Wetherill is the commander of 109th Engineer

Group (Combat), South Dakota Army National Guard, and

served as the commander of Task Force Coyote. Previous

assignments include commander of the 109th Engineer

Battalion, State Public Affairs Officer, and commander of the

129th Public Affairs Detachment. She is a graduate of the

Army War College and holds a master’s from South Dakota

State University.

Soldiers of Task Force Coyote construct concrete forms in preparation for placement of

concrete to increase aircraft parking space at Bagram Airfield. In the background, the dust

flies as crews work ahead of the concrete placement group.

Photo by Colonel Nancy J. Wetherill
pending Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) actions;

and have no limiting profiles.

The point of contact for this course is the Directorate

of Training and Leader Development (DOTLD) Sergeant

Major at (573) 563-4094, or e-mail <atsedot@wood.

army.mil>. The DOTLD Web site is at <http://www.wood.

army.mil/dotld/>.

38 Engineer July-September 2005

Urban Mobility Breaching Course (UMBC). The

UMBC is a 3-week course conducted at Camp Lejeune,

North Carolina, by the United States Marine Corps, with

assistance from three United States Army engineers. Two

weeks of the course are consolidated training, and the

remaining week is Army-unique. The maximum Army

course load for the UMBC is 15 students. Slots for the

course can be reserved through the Army Training

Requirements and Resources System (ATRRS).

The UMBC provides advanced information on urban

breaching operations. The course consists of in-depth

explosive theory; detailed planning that combines

operational and training safety issues; urban reconnaissance; and employment of urban breaching assets,

including explosive, manual, and ballistic breaching

techniques for urban operations. The UMBC teaches the

use of Current Force equipment that supports mobility

operations in support of the maneuver force.

Students must meet requirements listed in Department

of the Army Pamphlet 611-21, Military Occupational

Classification and Structure, and Army Regulation 600-9,

The Army Weight Control Program; be a combat engineer

noncommissioned officer in the grade of E-5 (P) through

E-7 and a graduate of the combat engineer Basic

Noncommissioned Officer Course (BNCOC); have no

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

Commercial numbers are (573) 563-xxxx and Defense System

Network (DSN) numbers are 676-xxxx unless otherwise noted.

ENGINEER UPDATE

Fiscal Year 2006 Class Schedule

Class Number Report Date Graduation Date

01-05

02-05

03-05

04-05

05-05

06-05

07-05

16 Oct 05

27 Nov 05

22 Jan 06

4 Nov 05

16 Dec 05

10 Feb 06

26 Feb 06 17 Mar 06

4 Jun 06

13 Aug 06

10 Sep 06

1 Sep 06

23 Jun 06

29 Sep 06

New Mission Training Plans (MTPs). The following

Army Training and Evaluation Program (ARTEP) MTPs

will soon be available on the Army Training Information

Architecture (ATIA) Web site at <https://atiam.train.

army.mil/>:

ARTEP 5-063-10-MTP, Mission Training Plan for the

Mobility Platoon, Engineer Company, Brigade Combat

Team

ARTEP 5-063-11-MTP, Mission Training Plan for the

Mobility Support Platoon, Engineer Company, Brigade

Combat Team

ARTEP 5-063-35-MTP, Mission Training Plan for the

Engineer Company, Brigade Combat Team

ARTEP 5-500-35-MTP, Mission Training Plan for

Engineer Companies (applies to the following companylevel tables of organization and equipment [TOEs]):

05417G000 (horizontal company)

05418G000 (vertical company)

05419G000 (engineer support company)

05437G000 (clearance company)

05438G000 (mobility augmentation company)

05439G000 (sapper company)

ARTEP 5-500-68-MTP, Mission Training Plan for

Engineer Staffs (applies to all engineer staffs except the

Prime Power Battalion).

For more information, contact the Collective Training

Division at <joseph.toth1@us.army.mil> or call (573)

563-7821.
July-September 2005 Engineer 39

First Lieutenant Carlos J. Diaz 2d Battalion, 69th Armor Regiment Fort Benning, Georgia

Sergeant Andrew J. Jodon 3d Battalion, 69th Armor Regiment Fort Stewart, Georgia

Staff Sergeant Lincoln D. Hollinsaid 11th Engineer Battalion Fort Stewart, Georgia

First Lieutenant Louis E. Allen HHC, 42d Infantry Division Troy, New York

Captain Phillip T. Esposito HHC, 42d Infantry Division Troy, New York

Private First Class Seferino J. Reyna 70th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division Fort Riley, Kansas

First Lieutenant Aaron N. Seesan 73d Engineer Battalion, 25th Infantry Division Fort Lewis, Washington

Specialist Tyler L. Creamean 73d Engineer Battalion, 25th Infantry Division Fort Lewis, Washington

Sergeant First Class Michael D. Jones 133d Engineer Battalion Belfast, Maine

Staff Sergeant Jeffery J. Farrow 146th Quartermaster Company Fort Totten, New York

Sergeant Larry R. Arnold, Sr. 150th Engineer Battalion, 155th Brigade Combat Team Lucedale, Mississippi

Specialist Samuel R. Bowen 216th Engineer Battalion Hamilton, Ohio

Specialist Casey Byers 224th Engineer Battalion Ottumwa, Iowa

Specialist James D. Carroll 230th Engineer Battalion Mckenzie, Tennesee

Corporal Randall D. Preusse 386th Engineer Battalion Austin, Texas

Sergeant Joseph C. Nurre 463d Engineer Battalion Weirton, West Virginia

Specialist Robert E. Hall, Jr. 467th Engineer Battalion Greenwood, Mississippi

Specialist Patrick R. McCaffrey, Sr. 579th Engineer Battalion Petaluma, California

Second Lieutenant Andre D. Tyson 579th Engineer Battalion Petaluma, California

Staff Sergeant Charles H. Warren 648th Engineer Battalion Statesborough, Georgia

Private First Class Mathew V. Gibbs 648th Engineer Battalion Statesborough, Georgia

Specialist Robert G. Davis 864th Engineer Battalion Fort Lewis, Washington

First Lieutenant Laura M. Walker 864th Engineer Battalion Fort Lewis, Washington

Private Robert C. White III 864th Engineer Battalion Fort Lewis, Washington

Sergeant Foster Pinkston 878th Engineer Battalion Augusta, Georgia

Sergeant David J. Murray 1088th Engineer Battalion, 3d Infantry Division New Roads, Louisiana

Dedication

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

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

Center for Engineer Lessons Learned (CELL). The

United States Army Engineer School CELL needs your

help. To keep training, doctrine, and combat developments

current and to prepare for the future, it is critical that the

school continuously receive relevant engineer observations, insights, and lessons (OIL). The CELL can

derive information from a variety of sources: unit afteraction reports (AARs); tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) used by units in and returning from theater;

Soldier observations/submissions to the Engineer School;

and requests-for-information (RFIs).

This information is used to conduct doctrine, organization, training, material, leadership, personnel, and

facilities (DOTMLPF) gap analysis and to determine

solutions. These solutions are distributed to the Engineer

Regiment via new doctrine and training products, the

Engineer Professional Bulletin and other publications, Web

sites, and by answering RFIs. (The Engineer School RFI

Web site provides the Engineer Regiment a reach-back

capability.)

You can help by forwarding any of these materials from

your unit’s deployment to the CELL point of contact.

Unclassified information can be sent by e-mail to

<Doctrine.Engineer@wood.army.mil> or <reggie.

snodgrass@us.army.mil>. Classified information can be

sent by secret Internet protocol, routed (SIPR) e-mail to

<snodgrassrg@monroe.army.smil.mil>. For more

information, call (573) 563-4117.
New Subscriptions: Use the subscription form below. Cost for a subscription is $19.00 (domestic and

APO/FPO) or $26.60 (foreign).

Renewal Subscriptions: To keep subscription

prices down, the Government Printing Office mails

each subscriber only one renewal notice. To be sure

that your service continues without interruption, please

return your notice promptly. If your subscription

service is discontinued, simply send your mailing

label from any issue to the Superintendent of

Documents, ATTN: Mail List Branch, Mail Stop: SSOM,

Washington, D.C. 20402, with the proper remittance,

and your service will be reinstated.

Address Changes: Please send your mailing label,

along with your new address, to the Superintendent

of Documents, ATTN: Mail List Branch, Mail Stop:

SUBSCRIBE TO ENGINEER TODAY

Credit card orders are welcome!

Fax your orders (202) 512-2250

Phone your orders (202) 512-1800

United States Government

INFORMATION

List ID: TENG

 YES, please send________subscriptions of:

Engineer, The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers, at $19 each ($26.60 foreign) per year.

The total cost of my order is $________. Price includes regular shipping and handling and is subject to change.

SSOM, Washington, D.C. 20402.

Inquiries About Subscription Service: Please send your mailing label, along with your inquiry, to

Superintendent of Documents, ATTN: Mail List Branch, Mail Stop: SSOM, Washington, D.C. 20402. The

telephone number is (202) 512-1800.

City State Zip code+4

Name or title (Please type or print)

Company name Room, floor, suite

Street address

/ /

Daytime phone including area code

Purchase order number (optional)

Check method of payment:

Check payable to: Superintendent of Documents

GPO Deposit Account

VISA Mastercard Discover

(expiration date)

Authorizing signature

Mail to: Superintendent of Documents, PO Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954

Important: Please include this completed order form with your remittance.

Thank you for your order!

Subscription Order Form

40 Engineer July-September 2005
On 4 April 2005, Sergeant First Class (SFC) Paul Ray Smith was posthumously awarded the first Medal of

Honor for actions in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A combat engineer with Bravo Company, 11th

Engineer Battalion, 3d Infantry Division, SFC Smith is the 14th engineer to receive the military’s highest

award.

Sometimes referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor—because the President awards it on behalf of the

Congress—the medal was first authorized in 1861, during the Civil War. Although more than 3,400 Medals of

Honor have been awarded since then, they are bestowed only to the bravest of the brave, and that valor must be

well-documented.

SFC Smith, who grew up in Tampa, Florida, enlisted in the Army in October 1989 and attended Basic and

Advanced Individual Training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. As a sergeant, he became known as a stickler for

detail, a trait not always appreciated by his newer troops, who often found themselves doing things over and over

again—until they got it right. But SFC Smith had learned from being in the first Gulf War how important it was to

train right in order to be prepared for battle.

And because of SFC Smith’s discipline, the lives of more than 100 American Soldiers were saved during a

firefight near the Baghdad International Airport on 4 April 2003.

On that morning, the engineers were manning a roadblock near the airport when SFC Smith’s platoon received

a mission to construct a holding area for enemy prisoners in a courtyard next to a watchtower. As the engineers

were clearing debris from the courtyard, they were surprised by about a hundred Iraqi soldiers, who opened fire on

SFC Smith’s men.

Disregarding his own life, and under constant enemy fire, SFC Smith organized a defense against the attack.

After seeing that some of his men were wounded and in danger of being overrun, SFC Smith manned a 50-caliber

machine gun atop a damaged armored personnel carrier. From a completely exposed position, he fought off the

Iraqis, going through several boxes of ammunition and killing as many as 50 enemy soldiers as he protected his

men and prevented an enemy attack on the aid station just up the road. SFC Smith continued to fire until he was

fatally wounded—the only American to die in the engagement.

Ironically, in the last letter that SFC Smith wrote to his parents from Iraq (but never mailed), he spoke of being

prepared to “give all that I am to ensure that all my boys make it home.”

According to his wife Birgit, “He loved his country; he loved the Army; and he loved his Soldiers.”

“It is an honor to share the title engineer with this great Soldier who exhibited extraordinary courage and

selflessness. ...All Americans can take pride in the heroism of this great Soldier and leader, and the Engineer

Regiment can be especially proud.”

Lieutenant General Carl A. Strock, Chief of Engineers

“We count ourselves blessed to have soldiers like Sergeant Smith, who put their lives on the line to advance

the cause of freedom and protect the American people. ...And we express gratitude for a new generation of

Americans, every bit as selfless and dedicated to liberty as any that has gone on before—a dedication exemplified

by the sacrifice and valor of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith.”

President George W. Bush

July-September 2005 Engineer 41

Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith