United States Army Engineer School

573-563-8080 / DSN 676-8080

COMMANDANT

MG William H. McCoy

563-6116

<william.h.mccoy@us.army.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

BG (P) John E. Sterling, Jr.

563-6192

<john.e.sterling@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 Loretta Deaner

563-8045

<loretta.angela.deaner@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–ARNG

LTC Steven K. Knutzen

563-8046

<steven.knutzen@us.army.mil>

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC Alfred Pantano

563-7116

<alfred.pantano@us.army.mil>

TRADOC SYSTEMS MANAGER – ASSURED MOBILITY

COL Robert W. 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 Bjarne Iverson

596-0224, DSN 581-0224

<bjarne.iverson@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

329-1931

<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

593-8142

<kent.savre@us.army.mil>

Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is prepared 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:

GEORGE W. CASEY, JR.

General, United States Army

Chief of Staff

Official:

JOYCE E. MORROW

Administrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army 0714302
 Engineer 1 April-June 2007

COMMANDANT

Major General

William H. McCoy

FEATURES

040.State of the Regiment – One Team - Relevant, Ready, Responsive,

Reliable

By Mr. Rick Brunk

06 Training the Neglected Core of Army Leadership—Troop-Leading

Procedures

 By Lieutenant Colonel Charles Olsen, Major David Sierakowski,

Major Ronald Holden, and Command Sergeant Major John Laudonio

17 U.S. Army Engineer Specialized Search Dogs

By Captain Danielle M. Roche and Mr. Jim Pettit

20 Dive Company Experiences Northwest Diving

By First Lieutenant Brett D. Evans

22 USACE Achieves Major Milestone at Superfund Site

By Mr. Eugene R. Urbanik

23 The Army’s Newest MOS

By Sergeant Major Ethan A. Jones

24 Fallen Hero Honored by Engineer Regiment and Soldier-Artist

By Mr. Christian DeLuca

26 ENFORCE 2007 Photo Essay

By Mr. Christian DeLuca

28 3d Annual Best Sapper Competition

By Mr. Christian DeLuca

31 Integrating Lessons Learned at MANSCEN

By Sergeant First Class Paul A. Zacher (Retired)

32 Community Pines for Beach Season

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

34 Real Estate Program Places Military Families in Homes

By Dr. Joanne Castagna

40 National Guard Uses Technical Colleges to Train Soldiers

By Captain James B. Richmond

38 Rethinking How We Train

By Captain Nils N. French

40 Historic Quad Buildings Renovated

Ms. Aiko Brum

46 Civil War Generals as Strategic Leaders–A Comparison of Sickles,

Meade, and Hooker

By Dr. Richard Swain

48 The Green Battalion

By Mr. Michael T. Wolford

50 Engineer Training Benefits School

By Specialist Ruth McClary

51 Engineers Pave the Way for Victory

By Specialist Jon H. Arguello

52 18th Engineer Brigade Joins V Corps

By Specialist Sean C. Finch

April-June 2007 Headquarters, Department of the Army Volume 37 PB 5-07-2

Front Cover: Photo by Mark

Scovell, Visual Information Center,

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Back Cover: Photos by Mike Curtis

and Mark Scovell, Visual Information Center, Fort Leonard Wood,

Missouri.

NGI EThe Professional Bulletin of Army EngineersNEER

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Major General

William H. McCoy

03 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major

Clinton J. Pearson

16 Regimental Awards

37 Dedication

53 Book Review - “Learning to

Eat Soup with a Knife:

Counterinsurgency Lessons

from Malaya and Vietnam”

Reviewed by Lieutenant

Colonel Paul B. Olsen

53 Book Review - “Looking for

a Hero: Staff Sergeant Joe

Ronnie Hooper and the

Vietnam War”

Reviewed by Mr. Jeffrey L.

Rosemann

UNITED STATES ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

MANAGING EDITOR

Shirley Bridges

EDITORS

Rick Brunk

Cheryl Green

Jennifer Morgan

GRAPHIC DESIGNER
2 Engineer April-June 2007

Clear The Way

By Major General William H. McCoy

Commandant, United States Army Engineer School

On behalf of Jill and me and the entire

engineer Family at your home of Fort

Leonard Wood, I extend best wishes and

enormous appreciation for the entire Team,

to include Soldiers, Families, civilians, and

loved ones. It is truly our privilege and

pleasure to meet many of you and thank

you personally for your service.

In May, many members of our Team

were afforded the opportunity to participate in ENFORCE 2007. The St. Louis portion was hosted by the Army Engineer Association, led by COL(RET) Jack O’Neil and

CSM(RET) Julius Nutter. BG(P) Jack Sterling updated the Regiment on engineer

support to the War on Terrorism, the transformation of the

Regiment, and the Future Force. His brief is posted for your

viewing and use on the Engineer School homepage. I appreciate and applaud the efforts of our Councils of Colonels and

Command Sergeants Major to identify, discuss, and address

the most critical matters related to the future of our Regiment. Great work was completed, but there is much work yet

to be done. The vendor displays reinforced the greatest of

our total team, Army, and Nation.

Day 3 began on a beautiful day at Fort Wood with the

colors of many of our units and Soldiers of 1st Engineer

Brigade representing the Regiment on the field. It was fitting

and heartwarming to say the least. Later that morning, we

officially dedicated the new Counter Explosive Hazards Center (CEHC) in honor and memory of SFC Paul Ray Smith (MOH

winner, 4 April 2003, Baghdad). This beautiful facility enhances our ability to train our Soldiers to defeat the great

IED threat. I was honored to participate in the ceremony with

Mrs. Birgit Smith, CW2 Bill Smock (INARNG Soldier-Artist

who painted and donated the portrait of SFC Smith), and

LTC(P) Kent Savre (CEHC Director). The memorial service at

the Engineer Memorial Grove was a great tribute and honor

to our 231 fallen engineer Soldiers since the beginning of the

War on Terrorism. It was our distinct privilege to have the

52d Chief of Engineers, LTG Robert Van Antwerp, join us at

Fort Leonard Wood and address our Soldiers and leaders.

We ended the day with the Regimental Ball, during which we

recognized many of our great Active, Reserve, and National

Guard Soldiers and leaders. I’d like to again thank everyone

for their support to and participation in ENFORCE 2007,

Engineers in Full-Spectrum Operations. I

look forward to next year.

I would like to take a moment to address

training of the Regiment. I’m proud of the

Soldiers and leaders of the 1st Engineer Brigade who are responsible for training our

growing force. They consistently achieve

excellence in training, adjusting to emerging

trends and TTP, while significantly constrained by resources—most notably personnel. The CEHC is fully engage in a surge of

counter IED training, preparing deploying

forces for Iraq and Afghanistan. We are preparing for the move of the Explosive Ordnance Clearance Agent (EOCA) Course from

Red Stone Arsenal to Fort Leonard Wood beginning this September with the pre-positioning of the lead cadre. Given the

continued effects of IEDs on our forces by our enemy and the

important changes to the blow-in-place (BIP) policy in Iraq, I

ask engineer commanders and leaders to prioritize attendance

of our Sappers at the two-week R2C2-Sapper Course and soon

to be four-week EOCA Course. These courses are invaluable to

protecting the force and defeating this threat.

As is often the case in the Army, summer comes with the

transition and farewell of great leaders and Families. Notably,

the Maneuver Support Center and the Engineer School farewell

two great engineer officers, COL Bobby Nicholson and COL

Paul Kelly, and their Families as they retire after nearly six decades of distinguished service to the Army. Our Regiment greatly

benefited from their service, and it goes without saying that we

will miss them greatly. As we enjoy summer activities and drive

the roadways of America, I ask everyone to remain extremely

vigilant of the risks and hazards that abound. Already this year,

we have lost far too many Soldiers, Army civilians, and Family

members to motor vehicle (several without seatbelts), motorcycle, and drowning accidents. I need your help by watching

out for each other, using the battle buddy system, employing

composite risk management in all that you do, on and off duty,

and employing safe practices to protect yourselves and your

Families and friends. Proper use of alcohol is a never-ending

concern. You are all too important to us, each other, and our

Army and Nation to lose you to senseless and preventable

accidents. Enjoy your summer, best wishes to you and your

Families, and may all the greatest blessings be bestowed upon

our Soldiers, civilians, and Families deployed and supporting

our Nation at war.
Lead The Way

By Command Sergeant Major Clinton J. Pearson

United States Army Engineer School

April-June 2007 Engineer 3

ENFORCE 2007

I

 would like to take this opportunity to

welcome LTG Robert Van Antwerp, and

his wife Paula, as the 52d Chief of

Engineers and thank the command team of

the 1st Engineer Brigade for their efforts in

making ENFORCE 2007 the success that it

was. Under the leadership of COL Iverson

and CSM Falaniko, the Soldiers and civilians

of the brigade showed their dedication

to the mission by working tirelessly

throughout the weeks leading up to and

during the conference. Thanks also to the

Army Engineer Association’s COL (R) Jack

O’Neil and CSM (R) Julius Nutter for their

hours of support throughout the week and to all the vendors

for their outstanding displays and great information. Thanks

for all you continue to do for our Regiment and for helping

make ENFORCE 2007 such a success.

We kicked off ENFORCE in St. Louis with an evening ice

breaker, where we were able to rekindle old friendships and

meet new people. This year’s breakout sessions were a great

opportunity for us to discuss important issues about the future

transformation of our Regiment. Newly activated units since

the last ENFORCE joined the engineer Regimental colors for

the Regimental Review ceremony. The new Counter Explosive

Hazards Center (CEHC) building was dedicated to Medal of

Honor recipient SFC Paul Ray Smith. We took the time to

honor our fallen sappers during a solemn memorial ceremony

at the Engineer Memorial Grove. This somber event served as

a reminder that freedom isn’t free. We are forever in their debt,

and our thoughts and prayers are with the families of every

Soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice. We continue to

pray for those Soldiers who are deployed in harm’s way.

As we progressed throughout the day, we received the

State of the Regiment address from LTG Van Antwerp, who

spoke with words of wisdom. During this year’s Regimental

Ball, we announced the gold DeFluery award recipient, LTG

Elvin R. “Vald” Heiberg III, the 46th Chief of Engineers; the

Itschner awards; and the Best Sapper awards. It was good to

see all of the Regiment’s leaders again, back here at the home

of the engineers, engaged in the shaping of our future in

support of our transforming Army. I especially want to thank

the Engineer Branch Sergeant Major, the Engineer Personnel

Proponency Sergeant Major, and the 416th ENCOM Sergeant

Major for taking time out of their busy schedules to be a part

of the Council of Sergeants Major. Their

presence during our conference was historic,

and the insights they have on what’s

important in our Army, its future, and the

initiatives being worked were of great value

to us all.

One of the aspects of ENFORCE that is

extremely important to the future of our

Regiment is the interaction that results

when we all come together on common

ground. This year proved to be very

beneficial because we were able to extract

recommendations on important issues such

as professional and personal development

for all Soldiers, MOS consolidation,

assignment and training considerations, promotion considerations, and force structure and equipment modernization.

Best Sapper Competition

T.

he Regiment’s 3d Annual Best Sapper Competition

was held from 30 April - 3 May 2007. There were

13 teams of high-speed and motivated sappers that

entered the competition. However, we can only have one 1st

place with a runner-up and 3d place, so in 1st place were

1LT Krug and SSG Flores; 2d place went to CPT Evangelista

and CPT Winkelmann; and 3d place winners were 1LT Gillman

and SGT Paulson. This was the best competition yet! I would

like to thank the sponsors that supported our engineer Soldiers.

For next year’s competition, I encourage all commanders and

sergeants major to plan ahead and come to Fort Leonard Wood

to show your support to our sappers.

In closing, let me say thanks for your dedicated support to our

great Regiment. It is held in high esteem, and that is due largely

to all your efforts. We are always on the cutting edge of fullspectrum engineering with the energy of taking care of each

other, our Soldiers, and their Families—while giving our total

support to mission accomplishment. Be proud of who you are,

and always let those around you know that you are a proud

member of the best Regiment in our Army. God bless you all.

Essayons!! Engineers Lead the Way!

CSM’s Note: I want to publicly thank and say farewell to

the CSMs who will leave the Army this year after having served

with all their being, mind, heart, and body. Our Regiment will

be forever in their debt. Their presence in their units will

certainly be missed.
4 Engineer April-June 2007

Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp became Chief

of Engineers and Commander of the United States Corps of

Engineers on 18 May 2007, taking charge of the nation’s

leading public engineering agency. His previous assignment

was as Commanding General, United States Army Accessions

Command and Deputy Commanding General for Initial

Military Training at Fort Monroe, Virginia. Other

assignments include the United States Army Maneuver

Support Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and

Commandant, United States Army Engineer School; United

States Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District; the

United States Army Division, South Atlantic, Atlanta,

Georgia; and the 326th Engineer Battalion, 101st Airborne

Division (Air Assault), during Operations Desert Shield and

Desert Storm.

J.

ust days after assuming duties as the 52d Chief of

Engineers and commander of the United States Army

Corps of Engineers, LTG Robert L. Van Antwerp spoke

to senior engineer leaders at ENFORCE 2007 at Fort Leonard

Wood about the State of the Regiment, focusing more on how

to improve for the future than on the Regiment’s current state.

“Continuity and change: There will be both,” he said, “so

get ready for them. We’re going to recalibrate this organization.

We’re going to see if we’ve got it right. And if we’ve got it

right, we’re going to drive on.” He introduced two acronyms

to explain how that would happen: SIW (share ideas willingly)

and SIS (steal ideas shamelessly). He said that if we’re willing

to share division to division, district to district, training

battalion to training battalion, and company to company, we

won’t have to invent everything ourselves. He said that almost

every good idea has already been thought of and that this

was one area where we can steal shamelessly.

LTG Van Antwerp talked about working on the Army Strong

campaign. He said that a New York advertising firm sent some

of their personnel to Fort Jackson to basic training to help

develop a new slogan for the Army. For four and a half days,

they did everything that the basic trainees did during that

time. At the graduation ceremony, they remarked that they

thought they were pretty strong when they got there but that

now they were Army Strong. Thus, the slogan was born. LTG

Van Antwerp has taken it a step further by asking “What does

Army Strong mean to engineers?” The answer, Army Strong,

Engineer Ready, was depicted in a short video with the

following definitions of the motto: 1

Webster defines ready

As being prepared mentally or physically

For some experience or action;

Prepared for immediate use.

But with all due respect to Webster,

There’s ready,

And then there’s Engineer Ready.

It is a physical readiness.

It is an emotional readiness.

It is a readiness of character,

And a readiness of purpose.

It is a readiness to do good today,

And a readiness to do well tomorrow.

It is a readiness to obey,

And a readiness to command.

It is a readiness to build,

And a readiness to tear down.

It is a readiness to get yourself over,

And a readiness to get over yourself.

There is nothing on this green earth

That is more ready

Than the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Because there is nothing on this green earth

That is more ready

Than the Soldiers and Civilians

Of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Army Strong, Engineer Ready!

LTG Van Antwerp said that the nearly four months between

his nomination for the post and final Congressional

confirmation helped prepare him for his new job. “The first

thing it did was build a passion in my heart for what we do. I

don’t think that just liking something inspires. I think you

have to love it.” The delay also helped him solidify the

Regiment’s top priorities, which are listed below, but not

necessarily in order of their importance.

State of the Regiment

By Mr. Rick Brunk

One Team – Relevant, Ready,

Responsive, Reliable
April-June 2007 Engineer 5

 Support the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) and

expeditionary missions.

 Enhance the quality of support to Soldiers, Civilians,

Families, and the public.

 Complete the transformation of the Theater Engineer

Commands.

 Effectively prepare for and respond to disasters.

 Enable Gulf Coast recovery.

 Deliver military, civil works, research and development

(R&D) and regulatory programs and projects.

In addition, there are three tenets which are inherent in

each of the priorities. They are—

 Communicate transparently. “This means that if I’m at

risk, you tell me about it. You don’t keep that from me,

because I have a right to know, whether I’m a citizen, a

stakeholder, or whatever.”

 Focus on your mission. “You have to think about

relationships—the people, the center of gravity—to get

the mission done.”

 Team with industry. “I’m going to use a different word

from ‘partnering.’ I think we have to team with industry,”

he said, and he used a sports metaphor to compare the

relationship between the Regiment and industry. “What is

partnering, and what does being on the same team mean?

If you had a basketball team, you’d look at every team

member, and every team member has to contribute. But

what about when you have a project and you’re counting

on part of that industry team to deliver that project on time.

Are they not part of your team? Are they just another

partner, or are they really a part of the team? I think they’re

a part of the team. We have about 35,000 employees in the

Corps of Engineers, and there are about 300,000 under

contract to us,” he said. He explained that the team concept

will be important during his tenure as Chief of Engineers.

“The priorities are what to do. This is my philosophy of

how to do it,” he said, pointing to the word T.E.A.M. on a

slide. “If you think about a team, what do you think about?

For one thing, you think about teammates. I depend on you,

and you depend on me. We’ve got to do our jobs separately

to do it together. In the ultimate game, it’s not about any

individual. I love it when a player gets up and says, ‘I did it for

the team.’”

“T - stands for trust. How are we viewed out there? Do you

think they trust us? Are we trusted internally? Are we trusted

externally? In one sense, I mean trust in your communications.

When we talk about strategic communications, it means that

what you say is true. There’s a sort of contract in trust, that

when you say you’re going to do something, you deliver it on

time. My gut feeling is that there are a lot of people out there

who don’t trust us, not like they should. Not for an

organization as dependable and incredible as we are. So we’ve

got to work on that trust.”

“E - stands for excellence. What goes into excellence? It’s

measured in a lot of different ways. You know it when you see

it. It’s not an ordinary way of doing things; it’s an extraordinary

way of doing things. When we do excellent work and they say

thanks, we’re going to say, ‘It’s been our pleasure.’ Not just

‘You’re welcome,’ but ‘It’s been our pleasure,’ because it is

our pleasure to serve.

“A - stands for It’s all about people. When you get to know

me well, you’ll know that’s where it is for me. That’s why I’m

still in. That’s why I want to stay and do this.”

“M – stands for motivating. A lot of it is your personal

example. When you get the right talent and they set the right

example, it’s motivating.”

“When you do all these ‘team’ things, you’ll leave a legacy.

And don’t we want to leave what’s right for the next

generation? What we’re doing today is going to make a

difference tomorrow.”

LTG Van Antwerp ended by saying, “I’m thrilled to be your

Chief of Engineers. I’m honored. It’s a privilege. I didn’t request

it or even aspire to it. But when offered, I was willing, and I’m

passionate about doing it—for 4 years or 10 years or whatever.

I thank you for what you’re doing; I commend you for what

you’ve done. ... I want to be with you when we do what we’re

going to do. I think we have a bright future. Not only that,

we’ve got the leaders and the people to get it done. So let’s go

out and do it.”

Mr. Brunk is the editor of the Engineer Professional

Bulletin. Previously, he edited the Fort Leonard Wood

newspaper, Guidon.

Endnote

1

The Army Strong, Engineer Ready video shown during

the Chief of Engineers address was put together by Major

Dawn Conniff, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

LTG Robert L. Van Antwerp, Chief of Engineers and

Commander of USACE, gave the “State of the Regiment”

address during ENFORCE 2007.
6 Engineer April-June 2007

A.

nyone who has served at a mobilization training center

(MTC) has probably observed something similar to

the following scenario when working with highly

cross-leveled Army National Guard or United States Army

Reserve units led by inexperienced commanders and/or key

leaders:

√ About 48 hours ago, First Lieutenant Smith looked at his

training schedule to confirm that his detachment would

conduct a combat patrol convoy and improvised

explosive device defeat (IED-D) training, but failed to

clarify the intent, standards of training, and exact

start time.

√ Two hours prior to commencement of the combat patrol

convoy, confusion reigns in the unit, because 20 Soldiers

did not receive advance notification of required

equipment. Four Soldiers suddenly announce that they

have dental appointments.

√ Due to an unannounced state dignitary visit, the

commander cancelled yesterday’s training meeting that

was to finalize the unit tactical standing operating

procedure (TACSOP) and determine the best unit crew

configuration options.

√ A platoon sergeant suddenly reports two HMMWVs and

an M2 non-mission capable, and the supply sergeant has

no crew-served weapon (CSW) blank adaptors for

the training.

√ The unit arrives on time on Range 29, but at the wrong

entrance.

√ The executive officer (XO) worked until 0200 to complete

80 percent of an operations order (OPORD)...by herself.

√ The same XO answers at least 20 “What’s going on?”

questions that morning.

√ Instead of rehearsing crew drills, a squad leader tells his

Soldiers, “You’ll find out everything when you get to the

lane.”

If the step sequence of these eight shortcomings seems

very familiar, congratulate yourself on being one of a minority

of military leaders who has memorized and understands troopleading procedures (TLP). Last year, TLP were cited as a key

training focus area for all deploying U.S. units by LTG Russell

Honoré, First United States Army commander, in his 20

Absolute Training Rules.1 TLP get a lot of lip service, but are

often considered merely another tool for company-level

leaders; the military decision-making process (MDMP) is the

related leadership tool for battalions and above.2 Yet

successful, seasoned military leaders at all levels conduct TLP

out of habit, keeping their teams informed through warning

orders (WARNOs), getting out of the tactical operations center

(TOC) to reconnoiter, using the MDMP to complete their plans,

etc. TLP are considered procedures, and the Army’s previous

leadership manual (Field Manual [FM] 22-100) cited TLP, but

surprisingly and sadly you won’t find this word sequence in

FM 6-22, the Army’s newest leadership manual.3

The First Army commander is not among those who have

left TLP out of his leadership lexicon. He has stipulated that

observer-controller/trainers (OC/Ts) at every MTC will

supervise to ensure that no collective training occurs until

TLP are done to standard.4

 Observer-trainer-mentors (OTMs)

ensure that every mobilizing unit that comes through the 181st

Infantry Brigade at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, receives two days

Training the Neglected Core of Army Leadership –

By Lieutenant Colonel Charles Olsen, Major David Sierakowski,

Major Ronald Holden, and Command Sergeant Major John Laudonio

“To accelerate the transformation of our

training...and develop adaptive, multiskilled

leaders, we must achieve full-spectrum capability

with full-spectrum training.”

General Peter J. Schoomaker

Chief of Staff, U.S. Army

“Transformation of Training”

(May 9, 2006) pp 1-2.

Troop-Leading Procedures
April-June 2007 Engineer 7

of formal, counterinsurgency (COIN)-based TLP and MDMP

instruction. The essence of TLP is shown in Figure 1.

This article addresses the critical need for OTMs during

National Guard/Reserve post-mobilization training, the key

components of a successful program, and a typical day for an

OTM. If you are returning from a deployment, you may find

your talents ideally suited to be an OTM to instill TLP, lessons

learned, and leadership principles in this year’s deploying

leaders during their postmobilization training.5

Definitions

O.

bserver-trainer-mentor. You may never have heard

of an OTM, which is not surprising since the authors

of this article created the acronym. Unlike OC/Ts—

who are responsible for controlling and training Soldiers on

specific individual or collective tasks or a specific training event

(such as urban operations, hand grenade employment, or an

S2 section evaluation during an Army Training and Evaluation

Program [ARTEP])— OTMs are experienced leaders assigned

to mobilizing units for the duration of their predeployment

training cycle to provide mentorship and continuity of

assessment. They fulfill the role/need of a higher “chain of

command” for independent combat support units when none

are present at the MTC. OTMs move beyond the “control”

duties of OC/Ts and instill sound daily TLP in units and train

leaders how to think vs. what to think, to prepare them for the

nonlinear decisions required in a COIN environment. Since the

end of Desert Storm, pin-on time to captain has been reduced

by more than 25 percent, resulting in less operational experience

for company commanders; OTMs share their years of

experience with these young commanders.6

 Prior to deployment, OTMs are also responsible for identifying those

few leaders who lack the capacity to lead in combat and train

their replacements.

Troop-leading procedures. TLP are a sequence of actions

that enable the commander or platoon leader to use available

time effectively and efficiently in the planning, preparing,

executing, and assessing of combat missions; they also assist

leaders in making, issuing, and supervising OPORDs. TLP are

integrally coupled with the MDMP.7

Mobilization 101

M.

TCs execute required individual and collective

Coalition Forces Land Component Command

(CFLCC) and United States Army Forces Command

(FORSCOM) training to validate units for deployment. For

some units, this can exceed 200 tasks.8 When a unit receives a

mobilization order at its home station, commanders are faced

with a broad scope of logistics, personnel, family readiness,

and training planning. They are also transitioning and

assuming new responsibilities from their handful of “full timer”

Active Guard and Reserve staff members.

The unit receives expert guidance from the mobilization

assistance team (MAT). In addition, its assigned training

support brigade (TSB) provides a unit mobilization assistor

(UMA) to work with the unit at home station. The UMA

helps the commander understand the mobilization process

and tracks administrative and logistical requirements. It is

a hectic environment and not a good time or place to learn

the basics of team building and neglected TLP. Once the

unit arrives at the MTC, UMAs provide the link between

the unit and the MAT to address the unit’s logistical and

administrative needs and to validate that every Soldier

achieves the standard in required individual and collective

tasks.9

 Training support battalions (TSBns) provide the

OC/Ts to train each of the major training lanes. OTMs

complete the picture.

Figure 1
8 Engineer April-June 2007

OTM Evolution

I

.

n February 2006, the commander of 2d Brigade, 85th

Division (now 181st Infantry Brigade, First Army Division

East), and the Fort McCoy installation commander

prepared for the influx of separate combat support units and

Soldiers and Airmen who would be conducting mobilization

readiness training at Fort McCoy in 2006. During a training

visit to Camp Shelby earlier that year, the 2d Brigade

commander observed how the commander of 4th Battalion,

87th Division, assigned battalion commanders and command

sergeants major as “combat counterparts” to train and advise

the battalion-level leaders of the 1-34th Brigade Combat Team

(BCT) on a daily basis.10 Upon returning to Fort McCoy, the

2d Brigade commander formed a team of field grade officers

and senior noncommissioned officers (NCOs) from the

1st Brigade, 85th Division (Training Support), augmented later

by ten recently redeployed Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)/

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Operation Warrior Trainer

(OWT) leaders to train and mentor down to the company level.

He added a fourth tier of training support to his existing team

concept (See Figure 2):

 MAT/mobilization unit inprocessing center (MUIC)

(installation resources, training synchronization, and unit

validation)

 TSBns (training lane execution and ARTEPs)

 181st Infantry Brigade staff (coordinate functional,

specialty, and new equipment training).

 The fourth tier of training support would be OTMs who

would train leaders in areas such as COIN MDMP, TLP,

maintenance management, Uniform Code of Military

Justice (UCMJ), time management, why we fight, TACSOP/

mission-essential task list (METL) development, and

fitness programs.

OTM Need

B.

CTs bring their own chain of command for their

Soldiers. The missing piece at many MTCs is a chain

of influence between the TSB/installation commanders

and non-BCT mobilized units. OTM field grade officers and

senior NCOs provide the necessary support. In the case of

Fort McCoy in 2006, OTMs represented a “higher echelon of

command” between separate unit commanders with different

needs and issues. OTMs gave the TSB commander and

installation commander the eyes and muscle to train and

enforce standards.

Accelerated deployment cycles and personnel turnover

often lead to increased personnel cross-leveling, which can

make it difficult for a commander to build and lead a cohesive

unit during the train-up cycle.11 This is especially true if it is a

combat support unit that is not organic to a BCT. Junior

commanders in these units are often accustomed to operating

relatively independently at their armories without battalion/

brigade staff nearby. In the limited time available during

weekend battle training assemblies, TLP often take a back

seat to the complex individual military occupational specialty

(MOS) and specialized schools and training needed in postal,

medical, engineer, logistics, signal, and finance units.

National Guard and Reserve Soldiers bring a valuable skill

set dimension to COIN operations that the Active Army may

not. Civilian skills are often aligned with, and augment, military

duties. Moreover, civilian professions often provide a useful

common ground with international military or agency

counterparts in-theater. The authors of this article are all

mobilized reservists and know the value that reservists bring

to the fight. However, the mathematical reality of our system is

that even the most dedicated reservists usually do not possess

the years of day-to-day military experiences as their Active

Army peers. It is a challenge for some leaders to make the

transition from a battle training assembly leader, where informal

interactions among all ranks are common, to an Active Army

leader who faces tough personnel decisions on a daily basis.

OTMs remind leaders that their Soldiers need leadership

vs. “likership.” In addition, many leaders need to let go of

linear doctrine and learn new COIN doctrine and terms. OTMs

get them up to speed fast on doctrinal changes (to include an

acronym primer tool) and expose them to cutting edge

Knowledge Management Centers such as the Battle Command

Knowledge System (BCKS) and the Center for Army Lessons

Learned (CALL). We include leader-based practical exercises

in escalation of forces (EOF), cultural negotiations, contemporary leadership challenges, and a full-spectrum staff

(and modified company-level) MDMP involving all six lines of

effort (LOE) depicted in Figure 3.

If units arriving at MTC McCoy have a low level of physical

fitness and weight-control readiness, the OTMs provide

nutrition and fitness guidance for the leaders to conduct

challenging, safe, battle-focused physical training (PT). Units

often increase their average Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) Figure 2
April-June 2007 Engineer 9

scores considerably after implementing

the OTM frequency, intensity, type,

and time (FITT) exercise program and

the First Army tactical foot march

requirements.

Deploying National Guard and

Reserve officers and senior NCOs at Fort

McCoy should know the 8 steps of TLP

prior to leader training. (Less-thansuccessful Reserve unit training

experiences primarily stem from lack of

TLP knowledge.) In addition, basic

command functions that may require

OTM training at the MTC include

conducting a formal maintenance

precombat inspection (PCI), administering an Article 15 hearing, reading a

Materiel Condition Status Report,

conducting an effective training meeting,

and establishing an effective and

responsive Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH)/Equal Opportunity (EO)

program. Since dedicated citizen-Soldiers

don’t have the benefit of experiencing

these events 365 days a year like their

Active Army counterparts, OTMs fill

these training gaps by going beyond validation

requirements—they teach leadership skills for life.

“We must continually think about the junior commissioned or noncommissioned officer who has to make a

huge decision, often with life or death consequences, in the

blink of an eye. There is no substitute for flexible, adaptive

leadership.”— General David H. Petraeus12

Launching the OTM Full-Spectrum Team

I

.

n March 2006, the OTM officer in charge (OIC) visited the

Combined Arms Center (CAC) for a week to learn and

implement the latest COIN and full-spectrum leadership

doctrine. It was here that the CAC commander, Lieutenant

General (now General) David H. Petraeus, instilled the Engine

of Change concept to train leaders in full-spectrum operations

along the six lines of effort shown in Figure 3 and to learn the

lessons from an article called “Winning the Peace – the

Requirement for Full-Spectrum Operations.”13 The CAC team

advocated training leaders how to think vs. what to think.

The OTM OIC concluded that OC/Ts are imperative during

training events but that OC/T infers “controlling” leaders.

Upon completion of “scheduled training” for the day, the

OC/T approach is not desirable when leaders take charge of

their units and TLP for the next day are just beginning. In

discussing leadership, the word “mentoring” is referred to in

25 paragraphs of FM 6-22; OTMs would train and mentor

leaders to guide them and let them learn on their own through

experience. Certainly a control (or higher command) function

would be an option, but only when critical questioning and

suggestions failed. The OTM OIC promised the CAC leaders

that “check the block” and/or “turn-key” training would not

be an option for the OTM full-spectrum team (OTM FST) in

training leaders to win.

Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “You can ask me for

anything you like, except time.”14 This applies to good TLP

as well as to the fact that the OTM FST had less than a month

to prepare before the first units arrived. Within 3 weeks, the

basic OTM processes had been developed, a 44-topic leader

training program (LTP) had been constructed, the OTM team

concept for mobilizing units had been created, and the OTM

unit logo had been designed.15 On 14 March 2006, the OTM

FST began training its first unit. From after-action reports

(AARs), unit exit surveys, and shared best practices, the OTMs

learned how to improve for every mobilizing unit thereafter.16

The OTM Mission

T.

he 181st Infantry Brigade OTM FST ensures that every

unit deploying into theater has competent and

confident officers and NCOs who know how to lead

their Soldiers and win in a COIN environment. The OTM FST

executes four key training functions:

 A full-spectrum LTP to train required FORSCOM leader

tasks.

 A professional development program (PDP) to train key

leader tasks outside of FORSCOM requirements.

Figure 3

Full-Spectrum Operations 6 Lines of Effort

Put another way, the days of “Patrol, Raid, Lift Weights” are obsolete.
10 Engineer April-June 2007

 Ongoing coaching and mentorship via embedded OTM

teams to build unit TLP and cohesion.

 Unit leadership assessments using the “Big 10”

process for the 181st Infantry Brigade commander.

Leader Training Program. Within two weeks of unit arrival,

the leadership training team conducts the four-day LTP for officers

and NCOs in the grade of E8 and above. Concurrently, NCOs in

the grade of E4(P) to E7 receive two days of the NCO Leader

Training Program (NCOLTP) (taught 100 percent by NCOs!).

The LTP covers 17 core leadership topics and the NCOLTP

covers 9 core topics. Figure 4 shows 14 required CFLCC leader

training topics along with 11 others directed by the 181st

Infantry Brigade commander. The training is heavy on practical

exercises and OPORD creation. The OTM has an AAR from

every unit, and so far, feedback from units has been extremely

positive. Among the most popular blocks of training are “Why

We Fight” and “Killology,” which address the “why” of OIF/

OEF in a frank manner that is lacking in most training and

media channels. Figure 5, page 8, depicts the full training list

offered by the OTM FST.

Professional Development Program. The 21 topics in the

PDP (Figure 5) are “electives” that most unit leaders need

refresher training in. These hands-on topics are trained during

the last day of the LTP, as selected by each unit commander,

and trained at the unit during rare “open” unit training time

periods. Generally, once a unit tried one PDP course, other

PDPs would follow. The commander of the 395th Finance

Battalion scheduled his leaders for virtually every PDP during

his unit training time.17

Team Program. A field grade officer and senior NCO are

assigned to OTM up to three mobilizing units for the duration

of a unit’s predeployment training cycle. We prefer that OTMs

Figure 4

cover multiple units, since we believe that a “24/7”

presence stifles unit leader growth and their ability to

take charge.18 FM 6-22 states that the Army relies on

“mentorship” as a leader development system that

compresses and accelerates development of professional expertise, maturity, and conceptual and teambuilding skills.19 The short mobilization cycle is

compressed to say the least!

Figure 6, page 12, depicts the 20 primary duties of

an OTM team with a unit. Being an effective OTM starts

with training and enforcing the First Army commander’s

20 Absolute Training Rules which specify, among other

things, that units will execute TLP with daily precombat

checks (PCCs), risk assessments, and OPORDs. They

also engage in critical questioning, coaching, and

sharing of their recent OIF/OEF experience. OTMs also

share more than 54 leader tools ranging from PCC/PCI

checklists to leader book inserts. One example in our

“OTM Tool Kit” is the checklist of subjects to cover

during a relief-in-place (RIP)/transfer-of-authority

(TOA) video-teleconference (VTC) (Figure 7,page 13).

Big 10 Assessment Program. Every 48 hours, the OTM

team compiles a unit leadership assessment, known as the

“Big 10” evaluation, to assess and track unit leadership

progress. OTMs counsel unit leaders and the results are

briefed to the TSB commander at the weekly “Eagles Call”

briefs. Commanders sequentially brief status and improvement

plans and learn from (and amidst) their peers in a heightened

“command and staff” environment. The first five of the “Big

10” criteria are derived from TLP, while the last five are

more specific to unit cohesion, safety, and fitness.20 Units

are rated from 1 to 5 with “1” being the lowest. A “4”

indicates that the unit is fully proficient in the tasks. A “5”

indicates that subordinate leaders are also fully proficient,

and the unit executes above standard in these areas even

in the absence of the commander and noncommissioned

officer in charge (NCOIC). The unit progress is tracked and

the unit is classified green, amber, or red accordingly.

Figure 8, page 14, depicts an example of a Big 10 Progress

Track and Figure 9, page 14,shows a sample of a Big 10 Daily

Assessment.21

TLP Notes, Quotes, and Comments

R.

eceive the mission. Too often, leaders do not receive

or clearly understand all five “Ws.” Insist on it,

particularly the “Why,” which helps clarify effects

and commander’s intent. Get the desired end state.

Issue a Warning Order. How many AARs in the history of

the Army have started with “We need to communicate better.”

Well, it starts here. Don’t wait until you have all the facts—get

word out to your Soldiers so they can get moving on steps

4 and 8. One unit posted signs all over its TOC that read,

“Who else needs to know!”

03A - COE/Full-Spectrum Operations/Why We Fight

03C - Perform Cultural Negotiations

03E - Lethal/Nonlethal Operations

03I - Risk Management

03L - TACSOP Development

03O- Fitness/Combat Stress

03S - COIN Fundamentals

03U - PCC/PCI

03Z - IPB

4D1 - TLP/OPORDs

4D2 - C2 and MDMP

4D2 - Information Operations

4D2 - EBO (p61)

5B5 - Establish Company TOC

01. TLP

02. OPORDs

03. Implement EO/POSH Program

04. AR 15-6/UCMJ Overview

05. Conduct AARs

06. Supply/Maintenance Management

07. Role of Commander/First

Sergeant

08. Tactical Communications

09. Leader OPSEC Considerations

10. Rear Detachment Commander/

FRG

11. RSOI OPLAN

Brigade Commander Specified Tasks

OTM Leader Training Program

Specified Tasks

(Required FORSCOM Change 8 Leader Training)
Figure 5

Leadership Training Program (LTP) for E8 and Up Battalion Company/Detachment

01. LTP Introduction X X

02. OTM Overview/OIF Theater Update (1.0 hr) X X

03. Why We Fight/Killology (1.5 hr) X X

04. OPORDs/Problem Solving/Leadership Tools (2.0 hr) X X

05. Troop-Leading Procedures (3.5 hr) X

06. COIN Military Decision Making Process (4.0 hr) X

07. Award/Officer Efficiency Report (OER)/NCO Efficiency Report

NCOER) Updates (1.0 hr) X X

08. Casualty Administration and Reporting Procedures (1.0 hr) X X

09. Command Philosophy/Developmental Counseling (1.0 hr) X X

10. Article 15-6/EO/POSH Leader Issues (1.5) X X

11. Implementing a Fitness/Nutrition Program (1.5 hr) X X

12. Contemporary operating environment (COE)/FM 3.0 new 2006/

 FM 7.1/Terms/Effects-Based Operations (EBO) (1.0 hr) X X

13. COIN/Full-Spectrum Operations (6 lines) (1.5 hr) X X

14. Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (1.0 hr) X X

15. Conducting Training Meetings (1.0 hr) X

16. Conducting an AAR (1.0 hr) X X

17. Cultural Negotiations for Leaders (1.5 hr) X X

18. EOF, IED-D Basics, and OIF Operations Q&A (2.0 hr) X X

19. Safety – Risk Management and Assessments (1.0 hr) X X

20. SOP and METL Development (1.0 hr) X X

21. Maintenance/Supply Management for Leaders (1.0 hr) X X

Professional Development Training (PDT) –

Additional Optional Leader Training

01. Operational Terms, Graphics, and Symbols (1.5 hr) X X

02. Role of the commander/XO/1SG/PSG (1.0 hr) X

03. Developing a Command Philosophy and Vision X X

04. Microsoft Office Techniques and Tips (1.0 hr) X X

05. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)/Bioterrorism Primer (1.5 hr) X X

06. Establishing a Company TOC (1.0 hr) X

07. Financial Readiness for Leaders (1.0 hr) X X

08. Army Command and Control (C2) Digital Systems (1.0 hr) X X

09. Combat Support Overview (1.0 hr) X

10. Traditional Customs and Courtesies of the Service (1.0 hr) X X

11. Tactical Communications Techniques and Joint Network Node

 (JNN) (1.0 hr) X X

12. Motivating Soldiers (1.0 hr) X X

13. IED Defeat MDMP/Earthmoving Fundamentals (2.0 hr) X X

14. Joint Operations Overview X

15. Blue Force Tracker X X

16. Language Lab X X

17. “Why We Fight” Movie Series (History Channel) X X

18. JAG Q&A 2-6445 (ROE, EOF, Article 15-6, SH, EO, Misc.) X X

NCO Leader Training Program (NCOLTP)

1. Conducting PCI/PCC (2.0 hr)

 2. Implementing a PT Program (1.5 hr)

 3. Risk Assessment (1.0 hr)

 4. CASEVAC/Medical Evacuation (MEDEVAC) for Leaders (1.0 hr)

 5. Section/Squad TLP/MDMP/OPORDs (3.5 hr)

 6. Conducting Training and AAR to Standard (1.0 hr)

 7. NCOERS/Counseling Subordinates, and Leader Books (2.0 hr)

 8. Conducting a Platoon Training Meeting (1.0 hr)

9. F/Counter RCIED (Remote-Control Improvised Explosive Device)

Electronic Warfare (CREW)/OIF Operations Q&A (2.0 hrs)

Sample OTM Leadership Team – “Full-Spectrum” Training Program

April-June 2007 Engineer 11
12 Engineer April-June 2007

Make a Tentative Plan. This is the Army’s

7-step problem-solving process, starting with

“Determine the best way to (insert mission

here). Experienced NCOs provide some great

courses of action—if they are involved and

are asked. Get solid facts and intelligence

preparation of the battlefield (IPB) and use

pattern analysis to help with assumptions. This

step is where leaders step away from their

“checklists on what to think” and develop

courses of action that incorporate lethal and

nonlethal means. As one COIN expert stated,

“Counterinsurgency requires an excruciatingly

fine calibration of lethal force. Not enough of it

means you will cede the offensive to your

enemy, yet too much means you will alienate

the noncombatants whose support you

need.”22

Start Necessary Movement. Preventive

maintenance checks and services (PMCS), risk

assessments, and PCCs are part of movement,

and every first-line supervisor needs to

conduct them. Getting smart on something falls

in this category as well. If you are a Level I

medical unit and there may be some Level II

operations involved, read the FMs to get

smart fast.

Reconnoiter. Officers must get out in their

area of operation to know what’s going on

externally. Let NCOs run the unit. Human

intelligence is key in COIN reconnaissance. Management is

about the present—the “What” and “How.” Leadership is

about the future—the “Why,” “When,” and “Where.”23 Get

out and lead.

Complete the Plan. This does not mean sending out

20 e-mail messages helter-skelter. The Army has a knowledge

management tool to transform information into a concise,

usable, value-added product—it’s called an OPORD, and good

units use it consistently.

 Don’t—

) Create a book; use graphics vs. words for your scheme

of maneuver.

) Include TACSOP items in your OPORD; that information

is already known.

) Regurgitate the higher order. Omit fluff and anything

not related to your area of operation.

 Do—

) Give your subordinate elements their own individual

mission statements in the Concept of OperationsManeuver paragraph (3.a.1).24

) Include a timeline and phases.

) Address all six full-spectrum lines of effort.

) Nail down implied tasks in tasks to maneuver units (pin

the rose on one element) or coordinating instructions

(most/all elements).

) Involve the XO, first sergeant, and supply sergeant in

Paragraph 4.

Issue the Order. This means verbally, at a battle update

briefing (BUB), or via a command post of the future (CPOF)

icon. Have different people brief it. Use visuals and use the

brief-back technique. Invite support personnel.

Supervise/Rehearse.

 PCIs are leader responsibilities to spot-check PCCs.

 Don’t just visually inspect; ask questions concerning each

Soldier mission, TACSOP, etc., to check mental readiness

and confirm information flow.

 Ask hypothetical questions requiring thought (for

example, execute a casualty evacuation [CASEVAC],

intelligence spot report, or rules of engagement [ROE]

decision).

 Mix different conditions into rehearsals. The task and

standards may stay the same, but vary the conditions

(for example, presence of civilians on the battlefield [COB],

media, and/or Iraqi Security Force [ISF]).

Figure 6

01. Establish presence at key meetings and act as a “sounding board” and mentor for

leaders.

02. Train and evaluate TLP: PCC/PCI, MDMP, risk, OPORDs.

03. Assist unit with battle-focused PT program: three ruck marches and two APFTs.

04. Mentor leaders and act as higher command as required (simulated higher chain) to

enhance readiness.

05. Share tools and best practices. Provide OTM CD set of all LTP topics and latest

TTP and graphic training aids (GTAs).

06. Complete 4-page checklist and initial assessment with commander (SARC, UMO,

rear detachment).

07. Help develop unit RSOI OPORD.

08. Assist with building leadership teams, Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) Soldier

integration, and command climate.

09. Enforce maintenance PCIs, weapons discipline, and safety.

10. Share CSW PCI and individual weapons qualification (IWQ) PMI improvement

technique.

11. Train unit in home station multipliers (rear detachment, HTN, Family Readiness

Group (FRG), newsletter).

12. Help create FRG video presentation of your unit’s training.

13. Assist with revised TACSOP/METL implementation.

14. Identify training issues with commanders 96 hours out; provide UTT Professional

Training.

15. Help facilitate ongoing contact with parent and RIP/TOA units (e-mail and VTC).

16. Be the link between your unit and brigade commander (the UA to the MAT is your

link to installation).

Sample of OTM Team Duties and Unit Mentorship

Training Program

SAMPLE
April-June 2007 Engineer 13

A Day as an OTM

W.

hat might a typical day for an OTM team assigned

to cover three units during peak cycle look like?

0600 – Meet Unit X leaders to ensure that they have

completed a proper risk assessment with the latest hazards

and controls for the day’s training. Spot-check equipment and

Soldiers preparing to conduct a 5-mile road march; on this day,

only four out of six know the top risks and countermeasures,

and 20 percent fail to meet the proper uniform standard. The

chain of command, not the OTM, corrects the faults, and the

unit makes their SP.

0700 – Meet Unit Z leader conducting PT, check the

Soldiers again, and coach them on fitness techniques. Stop

unit training after noticing that they didn’t take enough time

for some of the Soldiers in their unit to stretch. Ensure that

weapons are 100 percent integrated into battle-focused

PT training.

0745 – Meet Unit Y leaders after combatives training for

the same PCC/PCI purpose. Listen to and advise the unit

commander about a tough personnel decision being

considered.

0900 – Attend the mobilization synchronization meeting

(sync meeting) with the UMAs assigned to each unit. Work

with our OTM MAT liaison officer to ensure that training for

the next week is properly scheduled for each of their units.

1100 – Meet Unit Y at urban operations training and help

share some TTP on training Soldiers on some TTP learned in

Iraq. Ensure that the NCOs check to see if their Soldiers are

properly clearing their M4 weapons at a clearing barrel.

1200 – The OTM officer shares a meal, ready to eat (MRE)

with the Unit X commander and explains how to complete an

Article 15-6 investigation concerning a blank negligent

discharge incident. Query the commander on plans for Soldier

and unit corrective training and pin down the commander on

when he personally will address the entire unit on the severity

Figure 7

Commander Subjects:

01. Organizational chart/contact information for military, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), ISF, mayors, etc.

02. Mission-specific requirements/trends/TTP/local EOF policy.

03. Verbatim copy of unit’s mission (written at the battalion-level or higher).

04. Task organization. How did their unit change, and what caused the change?

05. Mistakes made in the first 60 days. How did your unit take casualties?

06. Most dangerous enemy course of action for mission/CSS scenario.

07. Past Article 15-6 investigations (point of contact [POC] for legal/UCMJ actions, past and pending).

08. Welcome packet, including map and POCs for the FOB you are going to.

09. Most common 25 – 50 Arabic phrases (with correct dialect) used in your job.

10. Top 5 recommendations of things to do more of during UTT.

NCOIC Subjects:

01. RIP/TOA ceremony setup.

02. APFT site – previous trends and recommendations.

03. Medical support – POC list for previously used facilities.

04. Leave and pass procedures; forms required; Red Cross message chain of events.

05. Housing issues/mess facilities/morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) facilities/church services.

06. Memorial service set-up/commo black-out procedures.

07. Maintenance requirements/additional assets available.

08. Finance support (usually home state offers best help).

09. Promotions, reenlistments, and schools in-theater.

10. Uniform, safety, Army warrior training (AWT) (formerly weapons tactics trainer [WTT] and common task testing

[CTT]) policies.

Staff Subjects:

01. Graphic layout of the TOC – try to mirror conditions during your ARTEP.

02. Higher locations and POCs for direct support (DS)/general support (GS) maintenance, personnel actions, and

logistics.

03. POC for maintenance assets, such as transportation management plan (TMP) NODs, weapons, BFT, Warlock,

ASIPS.

04. Container express (military shipping container) (CONEX) movement timeline, in and out, and POC for customs

officials.

05. Key schools and training to be completed prior to arrival.

06. Required and recommended training while in-theater or reception, staging, onward-movement, and integration

(RSOI).

Sample of OTM Subjects for Mobilizing Unit to Cover With RIP/TOA Unit

SAMPLE
the biweekly 15 minutes of officer professional development

(OPD)/NCO professional development (NCOPD) for the unit.

Today’s topic is “Improving Family Readiness Group

Operations” and sharing the “Top 10” questions to ask at

tomorrow’s VTC with their RIP/TOA unit. Praise the 1st Platoon

leader for his conduct of realistic EOF rehearsals.

14 Engineer April-June 2007

of this kind of incident. Discuss

other issues with him that are

“keeping him up at night.”

1300 – The OTM NCO heads

over to the NCOLTP as an

instructor to train 60 NCOs from

three different units in leader

CASEVAC procedures and how

to write an OPORD that focuses

on getting leaders to identify

implied, and not just specified,

tasks. Finish with a hands-on

practical exercise in the forward

operating base (FOB).

1300 – The OTM officer

reports as the assistant instructor

at LTP for teaching junior officers

the roles and responsibilities of

an NCO and coaching them on

counseling procedures. He gives

two real-life OEF examples that

he faced, which generates a

20-minute discussion on alternate courses of action.

1430 – Document and complete all three “Big 10”

evaluations and stop by the OTM TOC to update the section

OIC on the leadership status of units and get further guidance.

Lieutenant colonel OTMs work primarily with battalions and

staffs, but add support to their five OTM teams as needed.

1600 – Attend brigade commander’s weekly “Eagles Call”

meeting for two of his commanders. Mentor the Unit Z

commander prior to the meeting

on his “Big 10” evaluation,

obtain his improvement plan, and

rehearse his briefing. Meet

afterwards with the Unit X commander and first sergeant to

review their performance and

discuss how to improve their

military briefing style.

1730 – Go back to one or all

of the units to conduct an AAR

of training for the week. Hear the

Unit X OPORD brief at their BUB;

interject some brief-back

questions to break the silence at

the end.

1900 – Attend a unit training

meeting and share observations

with unit leaders. OTMs are

included in the unit BUB agenda

right before the NCOIC and

commander. The OTM conducts

Figure 9

Figure 8

SAMPLE

SAMPLE

OTM FST

Unit Status Chart

OTM FST

Unit Status Chart
Sergeant Major Laudonio is the NCOIC of the

Mobilization Assistance Team at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. He

has served more than 30 years in the Army and has completed

four OIF/OEF tours, including Iraq; Afghanistan;

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and Eastern Europe. His most recent

experience in Iraq was with a transportation company, which

logged more than one million miles driving throughout Iraq.

Endnotes

1

 Major General Russel L Honoré, First Army OC/T

Leaderbook, Rule #5 and #6, 30 October 2006.

2

 FM 22-100, Army Leadership, 31 August 1999, paragraph

2-114. During tactical operations, decision making and planning

are enhanced by two methodologies: the MDMP and the TLP.

Battalion and higher echelons follow the MDMP. Company

and lower echelons follow the TLP.

3

 FM 6-22, Army Leadership (Competent, Confident, and

Agile) dated October 2006. Many Army publications are not

lacking in training TLP. For those who want to dig deep into

TLP, FM 3-21.9, Tactical Employment of Antiarmor Platoons

and Companies, is a sound example of breaking down of TLP.

4

 First Army Training Rules, Rule #5 and #6, dated June

2006.

5

 National Guard and Reserve soldiers returning from OIF/

OEF can join the Operation Warrior Trainer (OWT) Program

and serve on active duty an additional 12 months at an MTC

to share their knowledge and TTP. <http://www.first.army.mil/

owt.htm>.

6

 Brigadier Nigel R.F. Aylwin-Foster, “Changing the Army

for Counterinsurgency Operations,” Military Review,

November-December 2005, pages 2-15.

7

 FM 3-21-91, Section II, Paragraph 2-7. Specific steps of

the MDMP help coordinate staff and commander

responsibilities. The company commander and platoon leader

have subordinate leaders, but not a staff, which places the

burden of planning on their shoulders. TLP reflect this reality

while incorporating the spirit, language, and general process

of the MDMP to assist in the preparation of an OPORD.

8

 OIF Change 8 to FORSCOM Regulation, March 2007.

9

 The installation and TSB commander will not validate a

deploying unit until requirements are met.

10 The 4th Brigade, 87th Division, commander implemented

his combat counterpart program in the Fall of 2005, using his

TSBn commanders and command sergeants major as the

“OTMs.” assigned at battalion level for the six battalions of

the 1-34th BCT. Special thanks to the 1-167 RSTA Squadron,

who demonstrated outstanding MDMP/TLP and painted an

example of what right looks like.

11 At least 8 of the 96 units that trained and deployed from

Fort McCoy in 2007 were over 50 percent cross-leveled

according to MTC McCoy MAT BUB charts, to include a unit

with members from more than 30 different states.

2000 – Grade and prepare findings for the Unit Y Command

Climate Survey that it initiated last week. One of the platoon

leaders excels at automation but does not appear to have the

skill set to lead Soldiers effectively. He has not improved with

mentoring, and the survey bears out this observation. Begin

preparing a draft letter of recommendation for the brigade

commander to reassign him to a staff job.

2100 – Check e-mail, and check out a route clearance article

as requested by a platoon sergeant on the BCKS at <https://

bcks.army.mil>. Conduct personal PCIs prepared for the next

day, and do everything possible to help Soldiers survive and

win in a full-spectrum COIN environment.

Conclusion

T.

he 181st Infantry Brigade OTM LTP was reviewed by

the First Army commander in the summer of 2006. He

designated the OTM FST to mail disk copies of the

OTM TACSOP and training presentations/practical exercises

to every mobilization station in the United States. Short of

deploying to win the War on Terrorism, there may not be a

more important mission than training Soldiers to win in a fullspectrum environment. OTMs are always enforcing theater

immersion by enforcing and sharing the words of deployed

leaders like the NCOIC of the deployed Brigade Support

Battalion of the 1-34th Brigade Combat Team, who wrote:

“Keep telling your Soldiers out there that TLP, PCCs, PCIs,

and wearing all of their protective gear is imperative for

their survival. We have had so many Soldiers walk away from

their ruined vehicles with nothing more than an exciting

story, due to their safety equipment. It is heavy and

uncomfortable but sure beats dying.”25

We will sergeant major, and we will “Train to Win.”

Lieutenant Colonel Olsen is the director of the 181st

Infantry Brigade OTM Leadership Training Program that

trained more than 2,600 deploying leaders at Fort McCoy,

Wisconsin, in 2006. He has served in 13 different countries as

a signal officer and foreign area officer (FAO) during 15

years of active service and 5 years of Reserve and National

Guard service. He is a marketing manager for Ford Motor

Company with an MBA from the University of Wisconsin.

Major Sierakowski is the primary instructor for the OTM

Leadership Training Program. He is a signal officer and

Opposing Force (OPFOR) subject matter expert with more

than 21 years of the National Guard and Reserve experience,

to include membership on the Army National Guard Biathlon

Team. He works as a civil engineer for Ciorba Group, Inc., in

Illinois.

Major Holden was the executive officer of the OTM

Leader Training Program for most of 2006. He is an air

defense artillery officer with more than 23 years of service.

He served as a senior MiTT Leader during OIF II/OIF III

from 2004-05.

April-June 2007 Engineer 15
12 LTG David H. Petraeus, “Learning Counterinsurgency:

Observations from Soldiering in Iraq,” Military Review,

January-February 2006, pages 2-12.

13 MG Peter Chiarelli and MAJ Patrick Michaelis, “Winning

the Peace – The Requirement for Full-spectrum Operations,”

Military Review, July-August 2005, pages 4-17. <http://

www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/chiarelli.pdf>.

Accessed 26 April 2007.

14 The Lessons of History, <http://www.mackenzie

institute.com/1998/newsletter070198.htm>.

15 OTM Full-Spectrum Team Logo created by MAJ David

Sierakowski, March 2006 (see page 6.)

16 The 4th Cavalry Brigade played a large role in augmenting

the 181st Infantry Brigade training efforts during the peak

mobilization season in 2006 by assuming several training lanes

and providing OTMs for three engineer battalions. They

developed the concept of the “Big 8” evaluation criteria, which

were revised into the “Big 10” criteria depicted in the article.

17 The commander of the 395th Finance Battalion helped

validate almost every PDP topic with great AAR feedback.

16 Engineer April-June 2007

18 Remember when you were a young leader. Was your

commander there 24/7; or instead, did he/she let you learn

mainly from your NCOs and make some mistakes in private?

19 FM 6-22.

20 4th Cavalry Brigade’s “Big 8” Assessment Tool was the

forerunner of the 181stt Infantry Brigade’s “Big 10”.

21 135MM = Class I, II, V and Maintenance and Movement.

22 Major John Nagl, “The Counterinsurgent,” New York

Times Magazine, January 11, 2004, page 7.

23 Hans Finzel, Top 10 Mistakes Leaders Make, Wheaton,

Illinois: Victor Books, 1994.

24 FM 7-10 “ page 44; “Maneuver: Address each subordinate

element by name and give them their mission statement.”

25 The commander or the BSB, 1-34th BCT, and the

commander of the 1-167th RSTA Squadron have sent 1st

Brigade, 85th Division, leaders numerous lessons learned and

exemplify the “full-spectrum operations” in their newsletters

at <http://www.redbullweb.com/24.html> and <http://

www.neguard.com/UNITS/1-167cav/index.htm>.

Each year, we recognize the best engineer company,

lieutenant, noncommissioned officer, and enlisted

Soldier—in each of the components—for outstanding

contributions and service to our Regiment and Army. Every

engineer unit in the Regiment can submit the name and

achievements of its best of the best to compete in these

distinguished award competitions. Only the finest engineer

companies and Soldiers are selected as recipients of these

awards. The Soldiers will carry throughout their careers the

distinction and recognition of being the Engineer Branch’s

best and brightest Soldiers and leaders. Following are the

results of the 2006 selection boards for the Itschner and

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Awards, the

Sturgis Medal, and the Van Autreve Award:

Active Army

Itschner Award: United States Army Forces Command

(FORSCOM) nominee, 618th Engineer Support Company (ESC)

Airborne (ABN), Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Award:

United States Army Europe (USAREUR) nominee, First

Lieutenant Tobias K. Watson, Charlie Company, 40th Engineer

Battalion, 1st Armored Division Engineer Brigade.

Sturgis Medal: United States Army Pacific (USARPAC)

nominee, Sergeant First Class Jeffery Goodman, 66th Engineer

Company, 2d Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT), 25th

Infantry Division.

Van Autreve Award: FORSCOM nominee, Corporal Kevin

C. O’Quinn, Headquarters & Headquarters Company (HHC),

27th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade.

United States Army Reserve

Itschner Award: Detachment 1/961st Engineer Battalion

(Combat) (Heavy), Wisconsin United States Army Reserve.

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Award:

First Lieutenant Wesley T. Craiglow, Bravo Company, 489th

Engineer Battalion, Arkansas United States Army Reserve.

Sturgis Medal: Staff Sergeant Nathaniel C. Day, Charlie

Company, 489th Engineer Battalion, Arkansas United States

Army Reserve.

Van Autreve Award: No nomination.

Army National Guard

Itschner Award: 913th Engineer Company (CSE),

Tennessee Army National Guard.

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Award:

First Lieutenant Terry D. Durham, Charlie Company, 201st

Engineer Battalion, Kentucky Army National Guard.

Sturgis Medal: Sergeant Guy M. Stevens, Alpha Company,

164th Engineer Battalion, Missouri Army National Guard.

Van Autreve Award: Specialist Paul D. Simpson, 191st

Engineer Company, Ohio Army National Guard.

The award recipients were recognized at ENFORCE 2007,

20-24 May 2007, at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Regimental Awards
April-June 2007 Engineer 17

I

.

n 2002, the United States Army Engineer Regiment was

directed by the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army to establish

a unique dog detachment at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Training for two types of engineer detection dogs was

specified—mine detection dogs (MDDs) and specialized

search dogs (SSDs). Each type of dog would have different

capabilities and operational uses but would share the same

mission: minimizing the threat to Soldiers from explosive

hazards. Since 2003, trained teams consisting of a handler and

a military working dog have been continuously deployed to

Afghanistan and Iraq, served in National Training Center

rotations, and provided countless demonstrations and

briefings to educate the U.S. military about the capabilities,

limitations, and employment techniques of MDD and SSD

teams. In 2005, the detachment reorganized and grew to three

detachments. More growth of the engineer dog teams is planned

to occur in 2008.

While MDDs are trained to find land mines and buried

unexploded ordnance, SSDs are trained to find firearms,

ammunition, and explosives during route searches, building

searches, open areas, and vehicle searches at all threat levels.

SSDs always work under the direct control of their handler.

The SSD concept is based on the firearms, ammunition,

explosive detection dogs developed by the British Army for

use in counterterrorist operations. The United Kingdom (UK)

is currently the world leader in training explosive detection

dogs and produces some of the highest quality dogs available.

Using the knowledge base and experience from the UK, the

U.S. Army hired several retired UK dog trainers to serve as

instructors for the United States Air Force SSD course at

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, and the United States Army

Engineer School MDD course at Fort Leonard Wood.

The four-month SSD course trains combat engineers along

with Marines, Airmen, and military police Soldiers. Before the

training moved to Lackland Air Force Base, the training was

performed at Fort Leonard Wood, where three graduating

classes trained a total of 21 Soldiers to be SSD handlers.

To obtain the maximum value from the services of trained

MDD and SSD teams, it is essential to have a sound

understanding of the capabilities and conditions for their

employment. Both types of dogs provide a fast and efficient

detection capability that can save lives. They have excellent

mobility and utility over ground that is not accessible to

vehicles and other mechanical clearance and detection

“...dogs provide a fast and efficient

detection capability that can

save lives.”
18 Engineer April-June 2007

equipment. They can detect a device without touching the

device itself, providing safety to the handler and those around

them. The dogs can recognize mines, unexploded ordnance,

explosives, firearms, and ammunition by the distinct odor of

the explosives or other components of the devices. The dogs

then show a change in behavior, recognizable by the handler,

indicating that they have discovered a scent they have been

trained to locate.

Using dogs is much faster than using mechanical or manual

searches and reduces the time spent on searches. However,

the actual continuous working time and the number of tasks

that the teams can perform will depend on the ability and

character of the individual dog. Engineer dogs are trained to

be bold, to be steady under gunfire, and not to be distracted

by other animals. They can work in areas and situations where

personnel, movement, and noises are present. It is imperative

to note that dog teams are not a stand-alone system for

conducting detection operations. The teams require security

at all times, and may often require an escort to assist in

maneuvering through areas. If the mission dictates that an

obstacle or threat must be cleared, engineers or explosive

ordnance disposal (EOD) personnel will be required. Dog

handlers are not trained for deactivating, destroying, or

clearing obstacles or threats.

One challenge to the use of dogs in detection operations

is the fact that a dog can only be handled by one Soldier at a

time. Because of the extensive training and the rapport that

the team must develop, there is only one handler per dog and

one dog per handler. Dogs may suffer a lowering of performance if excessive distracting elements are present, may

be reluctant to negotiate areas that may prove physically

harmful, and may be of little value for

searching persons. The dogs are

trained to work with Soldiers who

always carry weapons and

explosives, so using the dogs to

search persons could confuse the

dogs.

Commanders are encouraged to

request SSD teams before entering

areas with a high probability of

encountering improvised explosive

devices (IEDs), weapon caches, or

explosives. Once a team is assigned

to support a mission and the handler

is briefed, the commander should

obtain the handler’s recommendations for the most effective

employment of the team and the best

working positions, consistent with

the factors that influence the dog’s

detection capabilities. The dog team

should participate in any mission

rehearsals. The commander must

ensure that security and safety are

provided for the team at all times. For extended missions,

dog teams require administrative, logistical, and operational

support. They also require veterinary support throughout a

deployment, but the United States Army Veterinary Command

handles this at most deployment locations. The engineer

dog detachments have assigned veterinary technicians

that deploy with the dog teams. The teams deploy with

field expedient kennel facilities sufficient for short-term

operations but require semipermanent facilities for long-term

operations.

Based on the support requirements detailed above, SSD

teams usually are based at forward operating bases. This allows

SSD handlers to conduct the required realistic training and

gives them access to theater-specific firearms, ammunition, and

explosives to maintain the proficiency of the dog teams for

maximum mission effectiveness. It is in the commander’s interest

that the dogs be familiar with every known explosive and other

casualty-producing device that the unit may encounter.

Although the dogs receive continuation training when not on

missions, the handlers’ access to the latest items is limited.

When possible, supported units should provide samples of

any new or different devices encountered in the field so the

dogs can become familiar and proficient with finding them.

EOD units can best assist the dog teams with specific

training aids.

Lastly, before a dog is introduced to a new operational

environment, the team should be given the time and resources

to practice searching under appropriate conditions. This

ensures that the dog is physically capable of locating

explosives and other casualty-producing devices in the specific

theater of operation.

 A handler and his SSD search an area for suspicious devices.
April-June 2007 Engineer 19

Before a dog team goes operational, several accreditation

tests are conducted. Testing of SSDs and handlers is

mandatory and occurs in three phases:

 Predeployment confirmation testing in the United States.

 In-theater testing at the base camp or in an established

training area.

 On-site confirmation testing before any live operations.

The dog teams have a strict standard of performance and

rigorous testing procedures. These can be compared with a

driver’s license test, which aims to establish confidence in the

ability to perform under some conditions without testing

against all possible conditions. The same principle applies for

a dog’s operational accreditation test. Its purpose is to provide

confidence in a basic capability to detect explosives. Passing

an operational accreditation test is evidence of confidence

and trust.

The greater complexity and danger of explosives detection

requires that the proficiency standards for SSD teams be

significantly higher than for any other type of dog team.

Therefore, certification depends on the demonstrated

knowledge and handling skill of the handler and the explosives

detection rate of the SSD. Handler proficiency is evaluated by

having the handler demonstrate detailed knowledge of the

characteristics of each of the explosives the team is trained to

detect, how these explosives may be used in explosive devices,

 A handler displays buried explosives found by his SSD.

and specific operational techniques used in the theater

of operation.

Captain Roche is the commander of the 94th Engineer

Detachment (Canine), Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and is

an SSD supervisor. Her previous assignment was support

platoon leader for Headquarters, Headquarters Company,

2d Engineer Battalion, 2d Infantry Division, Camp Castle,

Korea. She is a graduate of George Mason University, Fairfax,

Virginia, with a bachelor’s in health and fitness.

Mr. Pettit developed and stood up the Engineer Detection

Dog Program starting in 2001 and is the technical advisor

to the Engineer Regiment on the use of detection dogs. He

works for the Counter Explosive Hazards Center at the United

States Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.
20 Engineer April-June 2007

The northwest is known for

inclement weather; it’s not

usually a question of if it will

rain, but rather when. Divers from the

511th Engineer Light Diving Team

worked for 2 weeks in temperatures

ranging from the low 20s to high 30s

while conducting dive operations in

support of the United States Army Corps

of Engineers® (USACE) Portland District.

After 7 consecutive days of rain,

everyone could feel the cold, especially

those tending divers 60 feet below.

USACE tasked the 511th to conduct

a variety of repairs, improvements, and

inspections on the John Day, The Dalles,

and the Bonneville Dams. All three dams

are located on the Columbia River Basin

east of Portland, Oregon. This is the most

hydroelectrically developed river system

in the world and includes more than

400 dams of all types. The three dams

alone are capable of producing 5.3 million

kilowatts of power at peak production.1

That’s enough to meet the electrical

needs of four cities the size of Seattle,

Washington, or 2,300,000 homes.2

The diving conditions on the

Columbia River are also different than

one might expect. Depths can exceed

150 feet in many parts of the river, and

water temperatures in the winter usually

average 42 degrees Fahrenheit. The 511th

used hot water suits to combat the effects

of hypothermia while diving. An insulated pipe in the umbilical line links

the diver to surface support and carries

the hot water down to the suit.

The dive team began the operation at

the John Day Dam on 4 December 2006.

The team conducted inspections on the

dam’s north-side spillway and installed

a cover plate over a discharge pipe.

USACE engineers needed the 511th to

determine if backwash and debris were

eroding the spillway apron on the downriver side of the John Day Dam, so they

spent 2 days recording footage and

taking measurements to provide USACE

personnel the information needed for

future improvements.

At The Dalles Dam, divers were tasked

with two jobs. The first task was to install

dogging devices, which hold headgates

to the upriver side of the dam. Headgates

are massive structures designed to hold

back water at a pressure of 14,000 pounds

Dive Company Experiences

Northwest Diving

By First Lieutenant Brett D. Evans

Two engineer divers enter the water at The Dalles Dam to conduct

inspections and maintenance.
per square inch. The second task was to

inspect the north-side fish ladder gate

seals. Fish ladders are a system of

concrete steps that allow fish to swim

upriver to spawn.

Final operations were conducted

at the Bonneville Dam from

11-15 December 2006. At this site, the

511th cleaned gate seals, installed waterlevel gauges for the fish ladders, and

removed debris from the upriver trash

racks (a cagelike attachment that collects

large debris). The accumulated debris

found on the trash racks can consist of

many things—from logs to dead animals.

On this mission, the 511th manually

removed small logs, which in some cases

required the use of a crowbar and some

ingenuity.

The mission was a success. Despite

the rain and cold, the dive team

completed 17 dive evolutions in 9 days,

for a total of more than 41 hours of

bottom time—the time from when the

diver leaves the surface in descent until

he begins ascent. It was estimated that

USACE saved $66,000 by requesting

assistance from the 511th to conduct

these tasks. Not only was this mission a

unique diving opportunity for the 511th,

but it also allowed the unit to foster

interservice cooperation with the USACE

Portland District.

First Lieutenant Evans is the platoon

leader for the 511th Engineer Light

Diving Team with the U.S. Army Dive

Company (Provisional) at Fort Eustis,

Virginia. He is a graduate of the

Engineer Officer Basic Course, the

Marine and Engineer Dive Officer

(MEDO) Course at the Naval Diving

and Salvage Training Center, and the

Sapper Leader Course. He holds a

bachelor’s in liberal studies from the

University of Montana, Missoula,

Montana.

Endnotes

1

United States Army Corps of

Engineers Portland District, <http://

www.nwp.usace.army.mil/op>, accessed

on 8 February 2007.

2

Ibid.

The stand-by diver sits on a bench, prepared to react in the event of an emergency.

April-June 2007 Engineer 21
22 Engineer April-June 2007

I

.

n February, the United States Army

Corps of Engineers® (USACE) New

York District achieved a major

milestone when it began the demolition

of the industrial park facility at the

Cornell-Dubilier Electronics Superfund1

site.

From 1936 to 1962, Cornell-Dubilier

Electronics, Incorporated, manufactured

electronic parts and components in

South Plainfield, New Jersey. It is alleged

that during its operations, the company

dumped polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCB)-contaminated materials and other

hazardous substances directly onto site

soils. Since then, numerous companies

have operated at the site as tenants. It is

estimated that 8,700 residents live within

one mile, more than 500 live within a

quarter mile, and some live less than 200

feet from the site.

The New Jersey State Department of

Environmental Protection recognized the

magnitude of the problem and requested

assistance from the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The EPA’s Region II conducted soil

borings at the site and surrounding

properties. The soil at the site is

contaminated with volatile organic

compounds and PCBs. Also, building

interiors at the site contain elevated

levels of PCBs and metals that are

probable human carcinogens (substances known or suspected to cause

cancer). Contamination was extensive

and uncontrolled—impacting sediment,

soil, and groundwater and posing

By Mr. Eugene R. Urbanik

Demolition began at

the Cornell-Dubilier

Electronics

Superfund site in

February 2007.

potential health risks to residents and

tenants. The EPA requested assistance

from USACE to clean up the site.

The magnitude and nature of the

clean-up project provided an opportunity for a team to be assembled with

specialists from three USACE districts

and two divisions. Personnel from each

district play a critical role in the project.

The New York District leads the remedial

action phase by managing a costreimbursable contract for the residential

property work and a fixed-price contract

for the demolition of the current industrial park that is located at the site of

the former Cornell-Dubilier Electronics

facility. The Environmental Residency of

(Continued on page 25)
April-June 2007 Engineer 23

F.

or the first time in fifteen years, the Army has a new

career management field (CMF) and military

occupational specialty (MOS). The United States Army

Acquisition Support Center (USAASC) has introduced

CMF 51, Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (AL&T) and

MOS 51C, AL&T Contracting Noncommissioned Officer

(NCO), into the full-spectrum Army. These NCOs will have the

potential to become warranted Contingency Contracting

Officers (CCOs) who are authorized by law to procure supplies

and services and provide minor construction in support of

deployed forces, which is vital to mission success.

AL&T Contracting NCOs will be assigned to the Army

Sustainment Command (ASC), formerly the Army Field Support

Command (AFSC), at Rock Island, Illinois. These NCOs will

perform their contingency contracting mission and roles while

assigned to units such as contracting support brigades,

contingency contracting battalions, senior contingency

contracting teams, and contingency contracting teams. All

contracting commands, units, and teams are a part of the

modular contracting force structure and the Army Force

Generation (ARFORGEN) cycle, providing contingency

contracting support anywhere, anytime. These units and teams

will be evaluated and assessed during National Training Center,

Joint Readiness Training Center, and Joint Multinational

Readiness Center rotations and joint exercises.

USAASC, as the proponent for CMF 51 and MOS 51C, will

be responsible for the life cycle management process—

consisting of recruitment, retention, individual training

and education, distribution, sustainment, professional

development, and separation—for the new CMF and

Contracting NCOs. Effective 1 October 2007, Soldiers from

any MOS, in the rank of staff sergeant through sergeant first

class, with less then 10 years of active duty service in the

Active Army, United States Army Reserve, and Army National

Guard—and who meet the prerequisites for MOS 51C—will

be allowed to request reclassification.

As the Army continues to restructure to deter, deny, and

defeat U.S. adversaries anywhere in the world, the contingency

contracting military workforce is redefining itself to meet the

requirements of supporting both conventional and unconventional forces. A brigade combat team must have the

capability to sustain itself for the first 30 days of an operation.

To achieve this goal, innovative and creative support is

required, and contracting is one of the many force multipliers

to make that happen.

For more information, contact Major

James Bamburg, the MOS 51C proponent,

at 703-805-2732, or <james.bamburg

@us.army.mil>.

Sergeant Major Jones serves as the

Army’s senior contracting NCO and

principal technical NCO advisor to the

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics & Technology) and ASA

(ALT) Military Deputy. He also serves as

the senior enlisted advisor to the Director,

Army Contracting Agency. He holds a

bachelor’s in public relations and in mass

communication from Paine University,

Augusta, Georgia, and is pursuing a

master’s in acquisition management from

American Graduate University, Covina,

California.

The Army’s Newest MOS

By Sergeant Major Ethan A. Jones
24 Engineer April-June 2007

D.

uring ENFORCE 2007,

the Engineer Regiment

honored one of its own

by dedicating the new stateof-the-art Counter Explosive

Hazards Center (CEHC) to

Sergeant First Class (SFC) Paul

R. Smith, an 11th Engineer

Battalion Soldier who made the

ultimate sacrifice when his task

force was violently attacked by

enemy forces near the Baghdad

International Airport on 4 April

2003. Hastily forming a defense

with the men and equipment he

had available, Smith braved

hostile enemy fire in order to

engage the attacking force and

evacuate wounded Soldiers.

Two year later, on 4 April 2005,

SFC Smith was posthumously

awarded the Medal of Honor for

“...acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the

call of duty... .” 1

It seemed appropriate to Fort

Leonard Wood officials to dedicate the

CEHC facility, which is “designed to find

solutions to the most prolific and

dangerous threat to our Army,”2

 to SFC

Smith, “who epitomizes everything we

look up to in a Soldier, sapper, and leader

and who all of the Engineer Regiment

looks up to as a hero.”3

During the dedication ceremony, a

Medal of Honor flag, presented by

President George W. Bush to SFC

Smith’s widow Birgit, was on display. In

addition, she unveiled two paintings

dedicated to the building. One of the

paintings, entitled “The Firefight in the

Courtyard,” depicts the battle that took

Smith’s life. It was painted by Patrick

Haskett, an Army veteran and military

artist, and dedicated by BAE Systems, a

contractor that produces defense

systems for the military. The second is a

portrait of Smith in his desert camouflage

uniform, painted and dedicated by

Chief Warrant Officer 2 (CW2) William

Smock, 1-163d Field Artillery Battalion,

Indiana Army National Guard. Smock

presented a second portrait to Birgit

Smith.

The Chief of Staff at the United States

Army Engineer School had met CW2

Smock while deployed to Iraq, and when

the idea came about to hang a portrait of

SFC Smith in the CEHC building,

Smock’s name was the first to come to

mind to paint it. An e-mail was sent to

Smock, asking him if he would be

interested in painting SFC Smith’s

portrait. After reading what had

been written about Smith, Smock

responded saying that he would

paint two portraits—an oil

painting to hang in the CEHC

building and a watercolor

painting to be presented to Birgit

Smith.

Although Smith’s was the first

portrait Smock has done to honor

a fallen Soldier, the National

Guardsman—who is an elementary art teacher in civilian life—

has been painting for Soldiers for

some time now.

Smock has been a part of the

Indiana Army National Guard

since he joined the 113th Engineer Battalion in 1971. He was

commissioned a second lieutenant in 1976 and worked his

way up the ranks to lieutenant

colonel. Unable to progress from

there—and not ready to get out

of the military—Smock decided

to resign his commission as a lieutenant

colonel in April 2004 to become a warrant

officer to deploy to Iraq. He had friends

who were deploying overseas, and he

wanted to go too. As a radar warrant

officer, he could stay in the Indiana

National Guard and deploy with his unit

to Iraq.

Smock was finally scheduled to be

deployed to Iraq at the beginning of

2005, with the 139th Field Artillery. So at

Christmas in 2004, he told his children

not to buy him anything because he

wouldn’t be able to take it with him. But

they got him something anyway—a

calendar, filled with family pictures.

When he saw them, he started to cry. He

By Mr. Christian DeLuca

An oil painting of SFC Paul R. Smith by military artist

CW2 William Smock was dedicated to the CEHC,
April-June 2007 Engineer 25

turned to January and saw a picture he

hadn’t seen in 20 years. And as he flipped

through the months, tears were

streaming down his face as his mind

replayed the events in the photos.

In Iraq, CW2 Smock ran a Q 36 radar

at night to locate enemy mortar and

rocket positions. And during the day, to

help pass the time, he began painting

landscapes with a small watercolor set

that a teacher friend had sent him. He

looked at his paintings of Radar Hill,

where his unit was located, and he

looked at the calendar his children had

given him, and he decided to make a

calendar for each of the 15 Indiana

National Guardsmen. After finishing the

first 12 paintings, he sent them to his

daughter to have the calendars made.

(As it turned out, he not only painted

calendars for Soldiers in his unit but also

for Soldiers from the five battalions and

the firemen stationed in the same area.)

CW2 Smock painted the calendars for

Soldiers to have for their enjoyment, as

a memory of a part of their life they will

not forget. It was his way of saying

thank-you to them for serving our

country. His dedication to his country,

as well as to his fellow Soldiers, make

him an inspiring example of what it means

to be a citizen-Soldier.

Mr. DeLuca is a photojournalist with

the Fort Leonard Wood newspaper, the

Guidon. He served as a combat correspondent with the United States

Marines from 1997 to 2001. He is a

graduate of the Basic Journalism Course

and the Intermediate Photojournalism

Course at the Defense Information

School, Fort Meade, Maryland, and

holds a bachelor’s in film studies.

Photos by Christian DeLuca.

Endnotes

1 SFC Paul R. Smith’s Medal of Honor

citation. See Engineer, July-September

2005, back cover, for complete citation.

2

 CEHC building dedication remarks

by MG William H. McCoy, Commanding

General, United States Army Maneuver

Support Center and Fort Leonard Wood,

23 May 2007.

3 CEHC building dedication remarks

by LTC Kent Savre, CEHC director, 23

May 2007.

This watercolor portrait was painted by CW2 Smock and presented to

SFC Paul R. Smith’s wife Birgit Smith.

the New Jersey Area Office is managing

on-site construction activities; the

Baltimore District is managing key

commercial real estate relocation

services; and the Kansas City District is

responsible for remedial design and

technical assistance.

Current work includes demolition and

environmental abatement of 18 industrial

buildings, transporting contaminated

material to disposal facilities, and soil

removal at four residential homes.

Extensive safety procedures are in place

to protect the health of residents in and

near the site. Future work includes a

railroad spur installation to reduce

transportation and disposal costs, onsite soil treatment of the industrial

park materials, the investigation of

59 additional residential properties, and

wetlands and groundwater investigation.

The project, which has several more

phases before completion, is expected

to cost more than $80 million. The industrial park soil remediation will begin

after the demolition is completed in

18 months, and the overall project is expected to be completed by 2011.

Mr. Urbanik, the New Jersey Area

Engineer, is a licensed professional

engineer and professional planner in

the state of New Jersey. A retired Army

Reserve lieutenant colonel, he is a

graduate of the Command and General

Staff College and holds a bachelor’s in

civil engineering from Rutgers College

of Engineering.

Endnote

1

The Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA), referred to as

Superfund, authorizes the Environmental

Protection Agency to respond to releases

or threatened releases of hazardous

substances that may threaten public

health or the environment. Superfund

sites are the nation’s worst toxic waste

sites.

(“USACE Achieves Major Milestone,”

continued from page 22)
26 Engineer April-June 2007

ENFORCE 2007

The Army Engineer Regiment honored its past,

celebrated its present, and envisioned its future

during ENFORCE 2007 from 20-24 May. The

activities began in St. Louis, Missouri, with the

Army Engineer Association (AEA) Engineer

Regimental Training Conference, which included

two days of United States Army Engineer School,

United States Army Corps of Engineers, and

industry briefings, all focusing on the ENFORCE

theme “Engineers in Full-Spectrum Operations.”

Activities began on Fort Leonard Wood on

23 May with a ceremonial Regimental Review

at the United States Army Maneuver Support

Center plaza.

The new Counter Explosive Hazards

Center (CEHC) was dedicated to Medal

of Honor recipient SFC Paul R. Smith, an

11th Engineer Battalion Soldier who

was killed during a firefight with Iraqi

forces in 2003. This Medal of Honor flag

was presented to Birgit Smith by

President George W. Bush in 2005.

CW2 William Smock painted this

oil portrait of SFC Paul R. Smith

and dedicated it to the CEHC. He

presented a watercolor portrait

to SFC Smith’s wife, Birgit Smith.

The

Itsc

Van

as t

ENFORCE 2007
April-June 2007 Engineer 27

“The Firefight in the Courtyard,”

painted by Patrick Haskett,

depicts the battle scene that took

SFC Paul R. Smith’s life.

The Regiment held a remembrance service at the Engineer

Memorial Grove for 67 engineer Soldiers who gave their lives

during the past year in the War on Terrorism. Their sacrifice

will never be forgotten.

In his “State of the

Regiment” address,

Chief of Engineers LTG

Robert L. Van Antwerp

talked about working

on the “Army Strong”

campaign, and he

introduced a motto that

fits the Regiment:

“Engineer Ready.”

e Regimental Ball included the presentation of the

chner, Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly),

n Autreve, and Best Sapper Competition Awards, as well

the Sturgis and de Fleury Medals.

ENFORCE concluded on 24 May with a Council

of Colonels, a Council of Sergeants Major, the

United States Army Corps of Engineers

Commanders Meeting, a Regimental barbecue,

and a golf tournament.

Captions by Christian DeLuca, Fort Leonard Wood Guidon staff.

Photos not identified are by Mike Curtis and Mark Scovell, Fort

Leonard Wood Multimedia Visual Information Service Center.

Photo by Christian DeLuca

○○○○○○
28 Engineer April-June 2007

T.

he 3d annual Best Sapper Competition at Fort Leonard

Wood, Missouri, lived up to its name 1 to 3 May as

mental and physical exhaustion took its toll on seven

of the thirteen 2-man teams, leaving only six to cross the finish

line—and one to be named best Sapper team. The “Tropic

Lightning” team from the 66th Engineer Company, Schofield

Barracks, Hawaii, took top honors in the grueling three-day

ordeal that tested the combat engineer skills of participants,

while subjecting them to substantial physical strain.

Over the three-day course, competitors must—

 Pass a physical fitness test.

 Perform a military operations on urbanized terrain (MOUT)

breach of two exterior doors using explosive breaching

methods.

 Tie knots used in mountaineering.

 Use an AN/PSS-12 mine detector to locate five mines.

 Qualify on the grenade range.

 Calculate the placement of timber cutting, steel cutting,

breaching, and field expedient charges.

 Construct and swim with a poncho raft.

 Negotiate a vertical obstacle using the prusik climbing

technique and the buddy rappel technique.

 Identify threat mines.

 Transmit a 9-line improvised explosive device (IED)

report.

 Assemble and perform a function check of weapon systems.

 Destroy a wooden target using an abatis charge.

 Engage targets with pistol, rifle, and squad automatic

weapon.

 Perform a MOUT breach, enter, and clear a building and

engage multiple targets.

 Calculate and place an inert charge on a steel target.

 Provide combat lifesaver (CLS) medical care to injured

Soldiers.

 Transmit a 9-line medical evacuation (MEDEVAC)

request.

 Destroy a concrete target using a counterforce charge.

 Perform a 9-mile run with nine arduous “mystery”

events.
Overall

First Place Team 2

Second Place Team 3

Third Place Team 1

Events

1. Physical Fitness Test Team 3

2. CLS Evaluation Team 2

 3. 9-Line MEDEVAC Request Team 6

 4. MOUT Breach I Team 2

Team 3

 5. Steel-Cutting Charge Evaluation Team 1

Team 3

 6. Timber-Cutting Charge Evaluation Team 1

Team 3

Team 4

Team 6

7. Grenade Range Qualification Team 6

8. Demolition Calculation Team 1

9. Threat Mine Identification Team 6

10. Knots Team 1

11. Counterforce Evaluation Team 1

Team 3

Team 4

12. 9-Mile Run Team 1

13. AN/SS-12 Mine Detector Evaluation Team 1

14. Poncho Raft Swim Team 2

15. Stress Shoot Team 8

16. Weapons Assembly Evaluation Team 1

Team 2

17. 9-Line IED Report Team 3

18. MOUT Breach II Team 1

Team 2

Team 3

19. Prusik Climb and Team 3

 Buddy Rappel Evaluation

* Multiple entries indicate that more than one team achieved

maximum scores.

2007 Best Sapper Competition Winners*

Sapper Teams

1. First Lieutenant Mark Gillman 66th Engineer Company

Sergeant Gordon Paulson Schofield Barracks, Hawaii

2. First Lieutenant Colby Krug 66th Engineer Company

Staff Sergeant Erasmo Flores Schofield Barracks, Hawaii

3. Captain John Evangelista 554th Engineer Battalion

Captain Jason Winkelmann Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

4. Second Lieutenant Christopher Vernon 554th Engineer Battalion

Second Lieutenant Brad Miller Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

5. Staff Sergeant Douglas LeBoeuf 554th Engineer Battalion

Second Lieutenant Kenneth Stover Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

6. Sergeant First Class Eric Prescott 911th Engineer Company

First Lieutenant Alex Viox Fort Belvoir, Virginia

7. Specialist Michael Cessaro 37th Engineer Battalion

Specialist James Parthemer Fort Bragg, North Carolina

8. Sergeant Brian Telega 37th Engineer Battalion

Specialist David Menjares Fort Bragg, North Carolina

9. Specialist Nicholas Wardwell 50th Engineer Company

Specialist Jarred Wade Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

10. Sergeant Jeremy Gaspard 50th Engineer Company

Sergeant Aaron Cole Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

11. Staff Sergeant Kevin Wiseman 515th Engineer Company

First Lieutenant Daniel Hayes Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

12. Specialist Robert Overstreet 5th Engineer Battalion

Sergeant Jeremy Coffman Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

13. Sergeant Michael Robinson 5th Engineer Battalion

Specialist Jose Payes Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

April-June 2007 Engineer 29
30 Engineer April-June 2007

Team 2, from the 66th Engineer Company, which also placed

in last year’s competition, said they came back to the

competition for just one reason—to win. They said the

competition seemed to be a little tougher than they remembered

from last year.

During the awards brunch, Major General William H. McCoy,

United States Army Maneuver Support Center and Fort

Leonard Wood commanding general, said that all the

participants should consider themselves winners.

“I’m tremendously proud of the competitors,” Major General

McCoy said. “To go through what we put you through these

past couple of days, you should all be proud of yourselves

individually.”

A Soldier from another team said nothing he had done

before compared to the Best Sapper Competition. Although

he had been through a lot of training, he said it was the toughest

thing he had ever done in his life. The commander of the

577th Engineer Battalion, the sponsoring unit, said the

competition allows Sappers to test their skills and will, while

increasing their esprit de corps. Teams compete for about

58 hours and cover about 50 miles. The events test their combat

engineer and infantry skills.

The winning team was presented with a bust of retired

Lieutenant General Robert B. Flowers, former Chief of Engineers,

on 23 May during ENFORCE 2007.

Mr. DeLuca is a photojournalist with the Fort Leonard

Wood newspaper, the Guidon. He served as a combat correspondent with the United States Marines from 1997 to 2001.

He is a graduate of the Basic Journalism Course and the

Intermediate Photojournalism Course at the Defense Information School, Fort Meade, Maryland, and holds a

bachelor’s in film studies.

Photos by Christian DeLuca A team prepares for the breaching event in the

competition.

A team from the

66th Engineer

Company prepares

their charge during

the steel-cutting

charge evaluation.
April-June 2007 Engineer 31

With the Army heavily engaged

throughout the world, the

Combined Arms Center

(CAC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas,

recognized the need to share lessons

learned quickly with the rest of the Army.

The collection and dissemination of

lessons learned to predeploying units,

leaders, and Soldiers greatly enhances

the success of our Army by providing

valuable tools to those who need them

most. In March 2006, the CAC commander implemented an initiative for

sharing Army lessons learned. Lessons

Learned Integration (L2I) spreads

lessons learned by capturing and

sharing emerging “best practices”;

relevant observations, insights, and

lessons (OILs); and tactics, techniques,

and procedures (TTP) from the operating

force.

Last August, the Center for Army

Lessons Learned (CALL) at Fort

Leavenworth trained and sent out more

than 40 L2I analysts to implement and

strengthen already existing L2I programs

at most United States Army Training and

Doctrine Command (TRADOC) professional military education (PME) centers

and schools and operational centers

such as divisional headquarters. The

analysts, all civilian contractors, are

retired or former active duty personnel

who have expertise and experience with

the proponent they are assigned to. At

the Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri,

United States Army Maneuver Support

Center (MANSCEN) Directorate of

Training (MDOT), L2I analysts support

each of the three schools and

MANSCEN.

The L2I analysts provide support to

TRADOC centers and schools by

researching and analyzing issues

identified by their proponents or from

an array of information sites and

systems. The analysts have vast

amounts of resources at their disposal

and the ability to collaborate with other

analysts worldwide to provide support

to their activity.

 Collection and Analysis Teams

(CAATs), another asset available to L2I

analysts, are deployed worldwide by

CALL to collect relevant and real-time

data to be shared. These CAATs, consisting of subject matter experts from

many branches and schools, go through

a training program prior to the collection

process, spend a week collecting data

from designated units, and then summarize their findings to be used later in

publications, TTP, or lessons learned.

Since 11 September 2001, CALL has

published hundreds of publications and

answered more than 5,000 requests for

information (RFIs) annually.

L2I analysts provide many benefits;

valuable and useful information has been

provided to MANSCEN and the schools

for dissemination to leaders and Soldiers

through the newly-developed MANSCEN L2I Microsoft® SharePoint

website. Relevant and branch-validated

information from the field is rapidly

shared with appropriate leaders, training

developers, and instructors to supplement lesson plans without the need to

rewrite programs of instruction (POIs)

or doctrine.

L2I analysts are also the direct link to

CALL for RFIs or publication requests

and for establishing and maintaining the

information flow between other analysts

where similar units have the same need

for information sharing. They “push”

information relevant to their activity’s

needs by “pulling” it from CALL or other

resources, thereby alleviating the need

for their activity to spend valuable

resources. Optimizing the L2I program

requires a collaborative effort between

the schools and the L2I analysts in

pushing and pulling resources to benefit

Soldiers in training.

For more information on how the

Engineer School L2I analyst can

support you, call (573) 563-5340 or

e-mail <paul.a.zacher@us.army.mil>.

Sergeant First Class Zacher

(Retired) is the Lessons Learned

Integration Analyst for the United

States Army Engineer School, Fort

Leonard Wood, Missouri.

By Sergeant First Class Paul A. Zacher (Retired)

Integrating

Lessons Learned

at MANSCEN
32 Engineer April-June 2007

I

.

f you make a trip to Bradley Beach on the New Jersey

shore during the winter months, you may be surprised to

see residents walking their dogs along the water, riding

bikes on the promenade, and surfing the ice-cold waves in

wet suits.

A team of United States Army Corps of Engineers® personnel witnessed this on a February day a couple of years ago

when they visited this beach that draws more than

100,000 beachgoers annually. It was obvious that the residents

yearn for beach season. Especially since the very dunes they

were observing were created by the residents themselves, using

donated Christmas trees, in an effort to protect the mile-long

shoreline the Corps had restored earlier.

The Bradley Beach shoreline had experienced erosion due

to previous storms and was in need of sand nourishment. In

July 1999, the New York District began a sand nourishment

project on Bradley Beach in Monmouth County as part of the

Corps’s Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet Beach Erosion Control

Project. The Corps had 3.1 million cubic yards of sand placed

on the shore, which added over 200 feet of beachfront and

created seven groin notches and four outfall extensions.

Dunes weren’t needed for protection in this area because

of the naturally high backshore, so they weren’t included in

the Corps’s project. However, after the project was completed

in January 2001, Bradley Beach residents wanted to take an

additional step to protect the Corps’s work, so they started

creating beach dunes using donated Christmas trees.

According to the operating supervisor of the Public Works

Department for Bradley Beach, a life-long resident there, they

wanted to protect the beach’s promenade from future storms

and give it a look that no other town had.

Beach dunes control erosion by limiting windblown sand

loss. In addition, residents wanted to block out noise on the

beaches. Now the only noise heard is the sound of the waves

and birds. The dunes also protect beach residents’ homes and

provide them a beautiful oceanfront and privacy.

Bradley Beach isn’t the first community along the 21-mile

Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet Beach Erosion Control Project

area to create dunes—Manasquan Beach and Monmouth

Beach created dunes using fencing and dune grass or a

combination of planting and fencing—but they are the first to

use Christmas trees. Every January, the residents place their

donated pine Christmas trees on the curbside and a Public

Works Department truck picks them up.

In 2005, to support the dunes that were being created, the

community designed a dune system called a sawtooth design.

“...Bradley Beach residents wanted

to take an additional step to

protect the Corps’s work, so they

started creating beach dunes using

donated Christmas trees.”
April-June 2007 Engineer 33

Christmas trees from the past holiday season are placed on the ocean side of the sand dunes where

they capture sand blowing inland from the ocean and eventually form permanent dunes.

Photo by Bradley Beach Public Works Department

Snow fences were placed on an angle along the promenade

side of the dune to support the dune system and make the

beach look appealing from the shore side. As trees are being

collected, the Bradley Beach Public Works Department places

them on the ocean side of the sand dune where they eventually

form permanent dunes. This year the trees were laid down

north to south on the east side of the beach, and next year

they will do the west side.

As in previous years, dune grass will be planted on top of

the dunes. When the project first began, residents of Bradley

Beach planted 50,000 plugs of dune grass on the dunes to

keep them anchored. The community is in the process of

receiving a grant for an additional 25,000 to 50,000 plugs of

dune grass that will be planted this spring.

The beach dunes have proved to be successful, and the

placement of Christmas trees—in combination with the snow

fencing and dune grass—has been effective in capturing sand

blowing inland from the ocean. Since the beginning of this

community project, an estimated 28,000 trees have been used

to create a stretch of dunes 25 feet wide and 10 feet high along

the mile-long oceanfront.

Community officials are very supportive of the project and

think it’s beneficial to the public. The mayor of Bradley Beach,

a strong supporter and the financier for the project, stated

that walking through the dunes from the promenade to the

beach feels like leaving one world for another. He will be funding

the project until 2008, the year the dune project is expected to

be completed. It’s this type of community involvement that

the Corps likes to see. A proactive municipal Public Works

Department is a beneficial addition to any federal or state beach

erosion control project. Bradley Beach is trying to aggressively

maintain the sand that was placed there and is an active

participant in the project’s success.

The dunes at Bradley Beach have also proved to be

beneficial to the environment, because they provide a more

diverse habitat than just sand alone—creating a sanctuary for

sparrows and attracting all kinds of insects for wild birds to

eat. The residents also find the dunes appealing. Not only are

they excited about the beautiful scenery, but they now have a

personal connection with the beach since their donated trees

will be there forever.

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

States Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. She can

be reached at <joanne.castagna@usace.army.mil>.
34 Engineer April-June 2007

W.

hile stationed in Denmark in

2006, a military couple was

living in a tight two-bedroom

townhouse with four newly adopted

teenage sisters. Their Family grew quite

large, quite fast. Living in these crowded

conditions, and not thinking that life

could get even more challenging, the

Army called the Soldier to Afghanistan

and the wife to Fort Drum, New York.

She packed up her daughters and arrived

at the installation in urgent need of a

home. Fort Drum, located on 107,265

acres in upstate New York’s North

Country, is home to the Army’s 10th

Mountain Division, which trains and

deploys thousands of troops.

Because of the Army’s new way of

doing business, hundreds of military

Families are now being stationed

stateside. The Army is experiencing its

biggest organizational change since

World War II. It’s changing from a force

that was prepared to take on one or two

potential wars at one time to an

expeditionary force that can deploy

continuously to different parts of the

world to fight the War on Terrorism. This

restructuring is requiring Soldiers and

their Families serving overseas to return

stateside, placing an urgent need on

quality housing.

To prepare for this, Army installations

such as Fort Drum are eliminating

inadequate housing and facilities and

improving and constructing others. The

United States Army Corps of Engineers®,

the Army’s construction agent, is

building barracks for single Soldiers on

the installation. But while Family

housing is being built, military Families

are in urgent need of affordable offpost housing. The Army, which is

traditionally about 80 percent rental,

provides Soldiers a base allotment

toward housing, whether they reside onor offpost.

In February 2005, the Fort Drum

housing team informed the Corps’s New

Real Estate Program Places

Military Families in Homes

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

A developer renovated a school to be used as homes for Fort Drum military

Families.

Photo by Barbara Dindl, Fort Drum Housing Office

Photo by Barbara Dindl, Fort Drum Housing Office
April-June 2007 Engineer 35

York District that 2,100 temporary,

affordable, quality homes outside of the

installation, but within commuting

distance, were needed by 2009. New York

District personnel, in cooperation with

the housing team, began researching the

nearby civilian community. The area

within a 30-mile radius of Fort Drum is

semirural, and the area outside the

30-mile radius is completely rural;

Syracuse, New York, is the nearest city.

The New York District created the

Domestic Lease Program around the

same time. The program encourages land

developers to construct or rehabilitate

new housing specifically for Soldiers and

their Families at installations where

housing is hard to find. Under the

program, developers are offered a

government lease. The developer provides the money for utility services,

refuse collection, and maintenance when

they are not part of the lease contract.

The District began an education

campaign within the 30-mile radius of

Fort Drum to inform residents about

the program and the Army’s need for

quality housing. They also placed

advertisements in local newspapers,

posted flyers, mailed letters, and

made telephone calls to a host of

institutions—including banks and

financial lenders, real estate property

associations, community groups,

realtors, churches, the Chamber of

Commerce, apartment complexes, land

surveyors, and assessors. The District

encouraged banks and financial institutions to lend money for construction, refurbishments, and new

development of housing in a moderate

and affordable range. They also worked

with interested developers on their

unique development needs, educated

them about the market, and offered

assistance with state and local officials.

In addition, the District held meetings

with mayors and city and town officials

to express the positive economic impact

the program would have on their

community, and they spoke with the

county office responsible for certificates

of occupancy to expedite the permit

process.

In the spring of 2005, developer Mike

Treanor and Associates contacted the

Corps about the program. The company

had purchased an apartment complex

close to the installation with the intent

of developing the property into new

housing units and thought these units

might be suitable for Army Families. The

Corps visited the property to ensure that

it met Army housing criteria. Then the

developer borrowed money from a

financial lender and used it to create

33 new housing units—sending a

positive message to the market early on.

Since then, Mike Treanor and Associates

have renovated more than 40 homes and

purchased a factory to develop into an

additional 32 apartments.

Clover Management, one of the

largest developers of affordable housing

in New York, also contacted the Corps

with interest in the program. In

September 2006, the company signed a

contract for 103 acres just outside of Fort

Drum to build 648 apartments—418 with

two bedrooms and 230 with three

bedrooms. The complex will also provide

an Olympic-size swimming pool, a

community room, and a physical fitness

facility.

Military Families are benefiting from

the innovative program to include the

Family that moved from Denmark. They

were housed “right outside the gate” of

the installation with “plenty of room,

neighbors, a real yard, and room to

breathe.”

The program is beneficial to other

people also. The government would

normally select one developer to do all

of the work, but this program creates a

natural free market approach with

healthy competition. The New York

District is encouraging other Corps

districts to implement this program: the

Alaska District implemented it last

summer.

The Domestic Lease Program is

improving the economy of the community, because it brings in more

residents and revenue to the area,

creates jobs for developers and service

industries, and improves the infrastructure by rehabilitating existing

homes and creating new ones. The

program is providing quality, affordable

temporary housing close to Fort Drum

for military Families. The potential

housing built around Fort Drum, at no

cost to the government, is now more than

$100,000,000.

For more information about the

Domestic Lease Program, contact the

author at <joanne.castagna@usace.

army.mil>.

Dr. Castagna is a technical writereditor for the United States Army Corps

of Engineers, New York District.

The Divarty Barracks are being constructed at Fort Drum to house single Soldiers.

Photo by Matthew O. Walsh, Army Corps of Engineers
36 Engineer April-June 2007

I

.

n a joint venture, Kentucky Army National Guard

engineers and the Kentucky Community and Technical

College System (KCTCS) have implemented a program

that provides Soldiers the opportunity to attend collegeaccredited classes in carpentry, electrical wiring, plumbing,

and heavy equipment operation during drill weekends.

The Kentucky National Guard is transitioning two

mechanized combat engineer battalions—the

201st Engineer Battalion and the 206th Engineer

Battalion—into a multirole engineer force.

The 201st Engineer Battalion commander realized

that the Soldiers needed training in their new military

occupational specialty at a beginner’s level, but they

were waiting on the equipment to be fielded to support

it. The unit thought of various ways to train—such

as building small sheds and roads at local training

areas—but they kept running into the problem of

equipment. In a collaborative effort, the 206th Engineer

Battalion commander and an instructor at KCTCS

came up with a unique way to solve the problem:

Train the Soldiers at the local technical schools, using

school equipment and certified instructors, thus

giving college credit to the Soldiers. At first it seemed

too good to be true, but after doing their homework

both battalion commanders agreed that it was the best

course of action.

The solution for paying for the training was made possible

by the Kentucky Tuition Incentive Program. Under this

program, Soldiers can receive tuition assistance for attending

any state-funded school, as long as they are in good standing

in their unit. The battalions presented the program to the State

Education Officer and gained her support.

By Captain James B. Richmond

Photo by Sergeant First Class Scotty Williams, Kentucky Army National Guard

Photo by Staff Sergeant Nathan Roe, Kentucky Army National Guard

A Soldier trains on carpentry skills under the supervision of

instructors from the Kentucky Community and Technical College

System.
Dedication

April-June 2007 Engineer 37

The second problem was how to overlay the accreditation

requirements of these courses during a National Guard

training-year calendar of one weekend a month and still be

able to conduct the mandatory training requirements of being

an engineer Soldier. The brigade operations noncommissioned

officer arranged a conference with the KCTCS leadership and

developed a training calendar that required five drill weekends.

Together they developed a training plan that allowed

the instructors the time needed to teach the skills

that would also meet the requirements for the college

credit. The Soldiers had a whole day of drill to

dedicate to instruction, allowing school administrators to develop a lesson plan that worked.

The school system was able to offer the following

courses:

 Beginning Carpentry Lab to 21W (carpentry

and masonry specialist) Soldiers

 Installation of Plumbing and Fixtures to

21K (plumber) Soldiers

 Basic Alternating Current (AC) Circuits Lab to

21R (interior electrician) Soldiers

 Heavy Equipment Operation to 21E (heavy

construction equipment operator) Soldiers

The 201st Engineer Battalion began training with

KCTCS in early 2007 and will complete the final

coursework in August or September.

 This program is a win-win situation. The Soldiers

get quality instruction in their new MOS and college credit,

KCTCS enrollment is up, and no equipment was required other

than what was on hand already.

Captain Richmond is the Training Officer for the 201st

Engineer Battalion, Kentucky Army National Guard,

Ashland, Kentucky.

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

We dedicate this issue to them.

Ardron, Sergeant Brian D. 425th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 25th Infantry Division Fort Richardson, Alaska

Beadles, Specialist Jason J. 887th Engineer Company, 326th Engineer Battalion Fort Campbell, Kentucky

Burge, Staff Sergeant Jerry C. 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, Texas

Davis, Specialist Michael W. 425th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 25th Infantry Division Fort Richardson, Alaska

Franklin, Private First Class Michael W. 44th Engineer Battalion, 2d Infantry Division Camp Howze, Korea

Grothe, Specialist Kelly B. Bravo Company, 321st Engineer Battalion Hayden Lake, Idaho

Jones, First Lieutenant Ryan P. 4th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 1st Infantry Division Fort Riley, Kansas

Liggett, Private First Class Robert A. 2d Battalion, 69th Armor Regiment, 3d Infantry Division Fort Benning, Georgia

McDonald, Specialist Sean K. 9th Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division Wiesbaden, Germany

Schwab, Staff Sergeant Coby G. Bravo Company, 321st Engineer Battalion Hayden Lake, Idaho

Smallwood, Specialist Erich S. Alpha Company, 875th Engineer Battalion Marked Tree, Arkansas

Sunsin-Pineda, Specialist Astor A. 4th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 1st Infantry Division Fort Riley, Kansas

Weaver, Staff Sergeant Shannon V. 425th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 25th Infantry Division Fort Richardson, Alaska

Soldiers from the 207th Horizontal Company, 201st Engineer

Battalion, learn to operate loaders and backhoes.

Photo by Master Sergeant Guy Coomer, Kentucky Army National Guard
38 Engineer April-June 2007

By Captain Nils N. French

W.

hen organizations are faced with an overwhelming

quantity of what must be done, sometimes

there’s little time to consider how it must be done.

This article focuses on the how, suggesting new approaches

to the way future engineer leaders are trained. The article

doesn’t imply that these methods aren’t currently being

applied, and the author acknowledges having already

witnessed their application. Chances are, however, that some

of the ideas are new and will thus be of value. It is also realized

that there may be valid reasons why the methods cannot be

applied—whether related to logistics or the aims of training in

general. Lastly, these ideas are not original to the author, but a

compendium of the suggestions of others.

Training for the 21st Century

Yale University graduates Claudia Wallis and Sonja

Steptoe coauthored a TIME magazine article titled

“How to Bring Our Schools out of the 20th Century.”1

The respected journalistic researchers in the field of education

and learning believe that a chasm exists between most schools

and the real world. The outside world has changed, but inside

the schools of America much is as it was 100 years ago (desks,

pens, notes, and students listening to teachers for hours).

The authors suggest that students should be taught differently

to develop “21st century skills”—broadly grouped into

teamwork, information, and thinking skills.

Teamwork Skills

Most innovations today are made by groups not

individuals, increasing the importance of teamwork skills.

Wallis and Steptoe draw this from the experience of former

Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine, who notes that there

is a need to emphasize communication skills, the ability to

work in teams, and the ability to work with different cultures.

Students must collaborate and solve problems in small groups

and apply learning to real-world scenarios (which results in

better learning than the “chalk-and-talk” approach). The

pertinence to the military is obvious; leaders must solve

problems in group settings from corps-level staffs down to

platoon and squad levels. Much of our training is already

approached in this way.

Information Skills

These skills comprise the

next essential skill set

for the 21st century.

Karen Bruett, Director of Education of

the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, a leading advocacy

group that draws from the expertise of educators and business

leaders, notes that the 21st century has brought an overflow

of information and a proliferation of the media that forces us

to separate the reliable from the unreliable. Students must

rapidly process and learn to manage, interpret, validate, and

act on new information. The ability to judge objectivity and

carefully assess what is known and how it is known is

becoming critical. We notice the same overflow of information

and resultant need for judgment in our tactical operations

centers and headquarters as the number of sensors and

sources on the battlefield increase steadily with the pace of

technology. This increase in the amount of information

available also means that information that was previously

memorized is now readily available electronically, enabling a

shift from memorization to a more solid understanding of the

fundamentals that permit the understanding of complex

concepts.

Thinking Skills

Wallis and Steptoe indicate that the approach to thinking

skills must change as well. They note that the modern world

has put a premium on creativity and innovation, and

students must learn to see patterns where other people only

see chaos—similar to the application to pattern analysis in

the improvised explosive device (IED) fight. In essence,

the ability to solve abstract problems is vital. To train in

this capacity, it is essential that the curriculum dwell on key

concepts that are taught in depth and in careful sequence

while avoiding a deluge of forgettable details as is “so often

served in U.S. classrooms.” Students must develop portable

skills: critical thinking, cross-discipline thinking, the ability

to make connections between ideas, and the ability to keep

learning.
April-June 2007 Engineer 39

Training for the Contemporary Operating

Environment

A.

monograph titled “Teaching Maneuver Warfare”2 by

retired United States Marine Corps Colonel Michael

Duncan Wyly, a former Vice President of the Marine

Corps University, suggests that styles of fighting have

changed and styles of teaching must therefore change as well.

Old doctrine called for centrally controlled, closely

orchestrated, slow-moving battles, and training was done in

much the same way. Now we face a fast-paced, loosely

controlled, decentralized fight where we must be responsive

to a changing situation. How we train the force must shift

accordingly. The teaching style must adapt to become less

controlled and highly responsive.

Wyly proposes that the central focus in training should be

to equip future leaders to make decisions. This is one of the

rare qualities sought in combat leaders, since the ability to

make decisions determines mission success in the contemporary operating environment (COE). Wyly stresses that

this ability must be focused on more than content,

methodology, or procedures.

To accomplish this, several methods are given. Historical

and hypothetical case studies, graded classroom discussion

of assigned reading, and terrain walks are suggested. Wyly

notes that instructors can give students exercises with varying

situations where limited knowledge of the terrain and the enemy

must be considered in a fixed amount of time and students

then clearly express their decided intent in a brief order.

Definitions, procedures, and weapons capabilities must be

narrowed down to the essential and put into a useful printed

form so they can be learned through hands-on experience.

The focus of the instructor must be on the decisive action that

the COE demands.

Training for Adult Students

S.

pecial considerations must be made for adult students.

The National Victim Assistance Agency (NVAA), which

manages a comprehensive nationwide curriculum for

adult students, highlights these considerations in a publication

titled “The Ultimate Adult Educator.”3

 Their suggestions are

specific and based on the NVAA’s extensive experience and

research in the field of adult learning.

When teaching adults, the key consideration is that they

must be in charge of their own learning. Instructors do not

have the ability to implant ideas and skills in adult students’

minds. They can only suggest and guide them, and their main

role is thus managing the process through which the adult

students learn, encouraging them to use their own judgment

and decision-making capabilities. Adults are more likely to

accept and absorb learning if they arrive at the idea themselves.

Knowing this, the practice of giving adult students information

to memorize must be discarded and activities that allow

students to generate concepts and ideas must be used instead.

Furthermore, adult students respond better when material

is presented through a variety of instructional methods, as

opposed to a single, repeated style (Microsoft PowerPoint®

is a possible example). As with younger students, adults learn

best by doing. Different from younger students, adults are

best motivated to learn when they need to know, and instructors

must help them ask themselves why they need the information,

how they can use it, and how they will benefit from it. These

unique considerations are important, although they are not

necessarily obvious, and their application is vital when dealing

with adult students.

Conclusion

S.

everal interesting points have been raised during this

study. The first common thread that emerges is the need

to focus on critical thinking and decision making. It is

clear that this should be learned through application to

scenarios in a team setting. Furthermore, there is a pronounced requirement to shift away from both memorization

and tightly controlled, centralized instruction. Research

suggests that students should be encouraged to take

charge of their own learning as opposed to being given

everything they need to know by their instructors. Again,

much of our training is already conducted in a way that is

in line with these suggestions. The difficulty will come in

changing the training that is not.

Captain French is a Canadian Army Exchange Instructor

assigned to the 554th Engineer Battalion, Directorate of

Training and Leader Development, United States Army

Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He is the

primary instructor for Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC)

Task Force Engineer training and was recently involved in

an extensive restructuring of the module that teaches the

subject.

Endnotes

1

Sonja Steptoe and Claudia Wallis, “How to Bring Our

Schools out of the 20th Century,” TIME, 18 December 2006,

pp. 50-56.

2

Michael Duncan Wyly, “Teaching Maneuver Warfare,” in

Richard D. Hooker, Jr. (ed.), Maneuver Warfare: An Anthology,

Presidio Press, Novato, California, 1993, pp. 248-264.

3

Christine Edmunds, Kip Lowe, Morna Murray, and Anne

Seymour, “The Ultimate Adult Educator: Achieving Maximum

Adult Learning Through Training and Instruction,” June 2002,

<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/assist/educator/welcome.

html>, accessed on 9 January 2007.
40 Engineer April-June 2007

D.

uring a three-year renovation project beginning in

2004, contractors restored historic C Quad at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, to its original architectural

design at the turn of the century, complete with period colors

and double-cased windows. Due to being included on the

National Register of Historic Places, the exterior of the buildings

in C Quad remains unchanged, while the interiors were

renovated to meet the current Army standards. C Quad—now

home to a full-size gym and basketball court, a company-level

conference room, and the latest amenities for Soldiers living in

the barracks—awaits the return of 2d Battalion, 35th Infantry

Regiment, 3rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, from Operation

Iraqi Freedom.

Built during the 1915 to 1918 timeframe, C Quad was part of

a large building campaign that focused on infantry regiments.

The configuration of four buildings surrounding a central

courtyard forms the concept of the “quad.” Two of the

buildings were barracks and the other two housed administrative offices. Like its contemporaries, C Quad consists of

some of the earliest concrete-paneled buildings constructed

in Hawaii. The buildings look much as they did on 7 December

1941, when the Japanese attacked Wheeler Army Airfield, or

in 1953, when they were the filming site for the movie version

of “From Here to Eternity.” Because of the renovations, the

history of this quad will live on.

The quad concept required preparing the design and

construction of the four, three-story concrete buildings to

include living quarters, community activities, company

operations, battalion headquarters, and dining facilities.

Demolition and renovation of these historical buildings had

to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act.

In addition, the Army’s Whole Barracks Renewal Program

requires transformation of facilities to comply with 21st century

building codes and antiterrorism and force protection

standards. The mandate greatly challenges installation

commanders, because it requires that barracks designed for

high-volume occupancy be converted into suites. For example,

the two C Quad barracks once housed 1,500 Soldiers. Now,

36 single-occupant and 132 one-plus-one rooms (2 private

bedrooms with shared living areas) will house junior enlisted

Soldiers and noncommissioned officers for a total of

300 Soldiers.

The suites feature separate bedrooms and a common

bathroom with a sink, toilet, and tub-shower and a kitchen

with a full-size refrigerator, range, and microwave oven. Each

barracks floor also contains a dayroom, which is a common

entertainment or recreational area.

 In total, C Quad required renovation of 288,000 square feet

of facilities. The two barracks were gutted down to their slabs,

and then recreated by contractors. All exterior utilities and

pavement were replaced, and the center courtyard was

restored.

In spite of modifications, the project was able to maintain

its heritage and historical features and stay true to historic

designs. The quad provides facilities for five company

Historic Quad

Buildings

Renovated

By Ms. Aiko Brum

Orignial C Quad interior
April-June 2007 Engineer 41

headquarters, to include a supply area, arms rooms, and

company offices, as well as the battalion headquarters building

with a state-of-the-art dining facility, battalion administrative

and headquarters offices, and a consolidated Soldiers’ lounge.

The facilities have the most up-to-date communications,

safety, and security systems.

A $58 million, 400,000 man-hour project, C Quad is one of a

series in barracks renewal projects that will provide Soldiers

stationed in Hawaii with “a quality of life commensurate with

the quality of service” they provide. Three out of five historical

quads at Schofield Barracks are now available for occupancy

or are in progress. Next year, four more will begin renovations:

two at Schofield Barracks, one at Fort Shafter, and one at

Wheeler Army Airfield.

Ms. Brum is the Chief, Command Information, and

managing editor of the Hawaii Army Weekly, Schofield

Barracks, Hawaii.

Newly renovated C Quad and courtyard

Original C Quad barracks
42 Engineer April-June 2007

T.

he strategic leadership tasks listed in Field Manual

(FM) 22-100, Army Leadership, are really broad

concepts. (The same concepts also are in FM 6-22,

Army Leadership, which replaced FM 22-100 in October 2006.)1

This article will consider the following broad strategic

leadership tasks:

 Provide vision

 Shape the culture

 Manage joint, combined, and interagency relationships

 Manage national-level relationships

 Represent the organization

 Lead

 Manage change

Do these concepts apply to the past as well as the future?

A valid concept is defined as “an abstract or symbolic tag

that attempts to capture the essence of reality. The ‘concept’

is later converted into variables to be measured.”2 These

strategic leadership tasks can be used to analyze the leadership

of past Army leaders. They enable students of strategy to

“capture the essence of reality,” to look back and compare

leaders, and thus gain insights into our own strategic

leadership. This article compares the performance of three

Union Army generals as strategic leaders in the Civil War:

Major Generals Daniel E. Sickles, George G. Meade, and Joseph

Hooker.

These strategic leadership tasks are doctrinally relevant to

contemporary warfare, especially the strategic challenge of

managing joint, combined, and interagency relationships. For

the Army of the Potomac, interagency relationships were

different, but no less important. The connection between

current doctrine and historical situations may be tenuous,

but it can also yield worthwhile insights into issues of strategic

leadership.

Provide Vision

“The strategic leader’s vision provides the ultimate sense

of purpose, direction, and motivation for everyone in the

organization. It is at once the starting point for developing

specific goals and plans, a yardstick for measuring what the

organization accomplishes, and a check on organizational

values. Ordinarily, a strategic leader’s vision for the

organization may have a time horizon of years, or even

decades. In combat, the horizon is much closer, but strategic

leaders still focus far beyond the immediate actions.”3

The time horizon for Sickles, Meade, and Hooker extended

over weeks and months, not years. During the Civil War, general

officers were wounded and killed at a rate 50 percent greater

than that of ordinary Soldiers. Therefore, the ability to provide

vision over the long term was limited. Even so, each leader

provided some vision to his command. Sickles was in command

of the 3d Corps of the Army of the Potomac from February to

July 1863; Meade had command of the Army of the Potomac

from 28 June 1863 until 27 June 1865; and Hooker had from

January to June 1863 to provide the Army of the Potomac his

vision.

Sickles’ pragmatic approach and political acumen far

outmatched those of others in the Army. The clique of West

Point officers considered him a “political general,” given

By Dr. Richard Swain

A longer version of this article was submitted toward the requirements of a Master of Strategic Studies degree at the

United States Army War College in April 2005. The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not

necessarily reflect the official policy or positions of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.
April-June 2007 Engineer 43

command despite his lack of experience. This determination of

amateur and professional Soldier was quite flimsy, since corps

and army command was unknown to the senior leaders in the

Civil War. The only officer with experience in corps or army

command was Major General Winfield Scott; however, Scott

had commanded fewer than 12,000 men in Mexico. Sickles’ 3d

Corps fielded 11,924 Soldiers on 2 July 1863, down from the

39,000 at the beginning of the war. An example of Sickles’

vision can be seen in his first meeting with President Abraham

Lincoln. Sickles was frustrated in his efforts to raise his

regiment in 1861, since the Republican governor of New York

refused to muster in Sickles’ Democratic volunteers. Sickles

then went to Washington and presented his argument to

President Lincoln and Secretary of War Simon Cameron, who

agreed to a new category of Soldiers—United States

Volunteers. Sickles outmaneuvered the governor of New York

and was given a commission. He was also the only amateur

who stayed in the Army at the close of hostilities, serving as

the ambassador to Spain during President Ulysses S. Grant’s

administration.

Meade’s vision for the Army could be seen in his trust in a

subordinate. Meade gave command of one wing of the Army

to Major General John Reynolds, who had been captured at

the same Battle of Glendale, Virginia, in which Meade

was severely wounded. Reynolds returned to the Army

after his parole, and Meade entrusted him (a fellow

Pennsylvanian) with half of the Army of the Potomac.

With only three days in command before Gettysburg,

Meade was Lincoln’s second choice to command the

Army. Reynolds had been Lincoln’s first choice, but

he turned Lincoln down because of the untenable

command relationship between the Army and the White

House. In the preceding three years, the Army of the

Potomac had four commanders—Brigadier General Irvin

McDowell and Major Generals George McClellan,

Ambrose Burnside, and Joseph Hooker. The level of

trust between the commander in chief and his generals

was low.

Meade was thrust into a command that he felt

obligated to assume. The order to take command

reached him at 0300 as the Army of the Potomac was

on the move, tracking the second invasion of the North

by the Army of Northern Virginia. Meade’s decision to

entrust a subordinate changed the direction of senior

leader relationships in the Army of the Potomac. This

provided a sense of direction, purpose, and motivation

for the Army.

Meade’s strategic vision was simply to eject the

invaders from his home state. The victory message he

sent to the Army of the Potomac after Gettysburg

included a phrase about removing the invaders from

“our soil.” But Lincoln was absolutely aghast at the

phrase and reprimanded Meade; Lincoln believed that

“our soil” should refer to all the soil, both Confederate

and Union. Meade’s oversight revealed his lack of

strategic vision regarding national objectives and goals. He

was misrepresented in the press because of his treatment of

journalists in his headquarters. He regarded them as a

hindrance to his goals, rather than a means of reinforcing the

national goals of the war.

Hooker is described in biographies as a braggart, a drinker,

and a womanizer who rewarded his friends with high command.

One of his initial moves was to place Sickles in command of

the 3d Corps, an appointment that overlooked the more senior

Major General Oliver Howard. But why would Hooker promote

Sickles over Howard? The character of the two men could not

have been more different. Howard was a devout Christian

who prayed over his men and passed out religious tracts in

the hospital. Sickles was a pragmatic, hard-drinking womanizer

who fit into Hooker’s command climate and vision. Hooker

“Sickles’ pragmatic approach and

political acumen far outmatched

those of others in the Army.”

Major General Daniel E. Sickles
44 Engineer April-June 2007

gave Howard command of the 11th Corps after the resignation of

Major General Franz Sigel, who was upset at Hooker’s promotion

over him. The 11th Corps was made up of mostly hard-drinking

German immigrants who had escaped religious oppression back

home. Hooker may have intended to put the priggish Howard in

a no-win situation by making him the leader of such a rowdy

corps. Certainly morale in the corps suffered, which could explain

the 11th Corps debacle at Chancellorsville. Hooker seemed to

lack vision in placing senior leaders in these commands.

Shape the Culture

“Strategic leaders inspire great effort. To mold morale

and motivate the entire Army, strategic leaders cultivate a

challenging, supportive, and respectful environment for

Soldiers and [Department of the Army] civilians to operate

in. An institution with a history has a mature, well-established

culture—a shared set of values and assumptions that members

hold about it. At the same time, large and complex institutions

like the Army are diverse; they have many subcultures, such

as those that exist in the civilian and reserve components,

heavy and light forces, and special operations forces. Gender,

ethnic, religious, occupational, and regional differences also

define groups within the force.”4

 Sickles, Meade, and

Hooker were all challenged to shape strong cultures

in their commands.

Sickles was well respected by his men. Decisive

and brave, he could shape and motivate his portion of

the Army. However, he was quick to blame others for

failure. He believed his actions on the second day at

Gettysburg won the battle. He was evacuated to the

rear after his leg was amputated by an artillery round

in the vicinity of the Peach Orchard, and he quickly

gave the press his account of his corps’s action. He

then preempted critics and used his influence in

Congress and in the press to undercut Meade. Sickles’

account to the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the

War directly countered Meade’s account of the Battle

of Gettysburg. The West Point clique regarded Sickles

as a loose cannon. Major General Henry Halleck’s

statement sums up the opinion of the West Point clique

that political generals were “simply murder” and

responsible for Union failures in the beginning of the

war. Congress was critical of the West Pointers’ efforts

to blame nonprofessional Soldiers for the Army’s poor

performance. Instead, Congress and the newspapers

placed the blame on the incompetence of the West

Pointers. The ensuing culture of animosity between

the militia officer corps and the Regular Army officer

corps is still evident to this day. After the war, the

dominance of either the militia system or the

professional army would shape Army culture. Sickles

was a charismatic, pragmatic political operator, but an

amateur Soldier in the eyes of the West Point officers.

His apparent success made the argument more difficult. Could a political figure lead a corps or division

just as readily as a trained professional officer? Sickles proved

that a charismatic political leader could.

Meade shaped the culture of the Army of Potomac by his

victory at Gettysburg. He had gained a reputation for being

short-tempered and obstinate with junior officers and superiors

alike, and he especially disdained civilians and newspapermen.5

He believed that militia officers were incapable of leading corps

and armies, and the testimony he gave to the Joint Committee

on the Conduct of the War undercut Sickles’ assertions and

corrected misrepresentations of the facts of the Battle of

Gettysburg. Meade’s reputation was sullied by his testimony,

but he retained the confidence of the commander, Lieutenant

General Ulysses S. Grant. Grant’s confidence in Meade and in

the culture that he had created was probably one reason that

Grant left him in command of the Army of the Potomac.

Major General George G. Meade

“Meade shaped the culture of the

Army of Potomac by his victory

at Gettysburg.”
April-June 2007 Engineer 45

Hooker shaped a culture of political backstabbing. He

undercut each of his commanders, yet he was able to

create a positive relationship with Congress and the media.

He supplied the media with information that would damage

senior officers. The charges of insubordination that

Burnside brought against Hooker after the Battle of

Fredericksburg were most likely true. However, Lincoln

relieved Burnside and placed Hooker in command of the

Army of the Potomac, due in part to Hooker’s political

ability. Hooker believed in cronyism, and the system gave

him loyal subordinates; however, it overlooked the

professional skills and abilities of men who were not

cronies. Hooker also shaped a culture of mistrust between

himself and headquarters. Lincoln placed Halleck over

Hooker, which probably led to Hooker’s resignation. The

message traffic between Hooker, Halleck, Secretary of War

Edwin Stanton, and Lincoln—leading up to Hooker’s

resignation—offers an example of individuals talking past

each other. Hooker could have shaped a culture that

supported the administration if he had accepted Lincoln’s

invitation to meet on 13 June 1863. The meeting might

have strengthened Hooker’s relationship with the

commander in chief before Lee’s invasion. The rejection

of Lincoln’s request to meet seems to have sealed

Hooker’s fate.

Manage Joint, Combined, and Interagency

Relationships

“Strategic leaders oversee the relationship between

their organizations, as part of the nation’s total defense

force, and the national policy apparatus. They use their

knowledge of how things work at the national and

international levels to influence opinion and build consensus

for the organization’s missions, gathering support of diverse

players to achieve their vision.”6 These Civil War leaders did

not effectively establish the relationship between their

organizations and the rest of the nation’s total defense force.

Sickles did not build consensus within his corps. He ignored

the advice of subordinates, peers, and superiors on the second

day of Gettysburg, when he moved his corps into an exposed

position—contrary to Meade’s orders—and put the entire

Army of the Potomac at risk. Sickles had no knowledge of how

his action affected the total defense force, and his actions at

Gettysburg exemplify poor strategic leadership. However, his

actions after the war to make Gettysburg a national battlefield

memorial offer a positive example of strategic leadership. His

quest for battlefield preservation left a legacy that supports

our nation’s defense to this day.

Meade did build consensus among his senior officers

around midnight of the first day of Gettysburg in the decision

to stay and fight. However, he did not manage joint, combined,

and interagency relationships very well. He failed to recognize

the strategic objective of pursuing and destroying the Army

of Northern Virginia after the battle and did not understand

the strategic significance of trapping Lee’s army north of the

Potomac River. He did not recognize the relationship between

his organization and the nation’s total defense.

Hooker did not understand his comprehensive role as the

commanding general of the Army of the Potomac and used the

historical precedents of Burnside and McClellan to determine

his role. He viewed his position as we now see a combatant

commander—such as the commander of the United States

“Hooker was confident in his ability

to do a better job than those assigned

to the command before him...”

Major General Joseph Hooker
46 Engineer April-June 2007

European Command or the United States Central Command—

with a direct reporting responsibility to the Secretary of

Defense and the President. After the Battle of Chancellorsville,

Hooker was subordinate to Halleck. The following message

specified his subordinate position:

WASHINGTON, June 16, 1863—10 p.m.

Major General Hooker:

To remove all misunderstanding, I now place you in the

strict military relation to General Halleck of a commander of

one of the armies to the general-in-chief of all the armies. I

have not intended differently, but as it seems to be differently

understood, I shall direct him to give you orders and you to

obey them.

A. Lincoln

Hooker found this command relationship unacceptable, which

resulted in his request for resignation.

Manage National-Level Relationships

“Strategic leaders identify military conditions necessary

to satisfy political ends desired by America’s civilian

leadership. They must synchronize the efforts of the Army

with those of the other services and government agencies to

attain those conditions and achieve the end state envisioned

by America’s political leaders. To operate on the world stage,

often in conjunction with allies, strategic leaders call on

their international perspective and relationships with policy

makers in other countries.”7 These Civil War leaders had little

need to act on the world stage. However, they did have an

obligation to meet the end state envisioned by America’s

political leaders.

Sickles was committed to the cause of suppressing the

rebellion. His motivation may be seen as consistent with his

self-aggrandizement. He needed a way to restart his political

career after his murder of Barton Key, which resulted from

Key’s affair with Sickles’ young wife. The temporary insanity

defense so adeptly presented by his lawyer, future Secretary

of War Edwin Stanton, saved Sickles from the gallows. But his

forgiveness of his unfaithful wife outraged his political base.

He needed to resurrect his political fortunes, and the war thrust

him back into the limelight. He was able to operate on the

national and international levels. His relationship with Lincoln,

Stanton, Grant, and the Congress served him well through the

war and beyond. He may have been a scoundrel acting only

for his own benefit, but that does not necessarily detract from

the service he performed for his nation.

Meade was a professional Soldier who placed Pennsylvania

first and had difficulty pursuing the political ends desired by

civilian leadership. Although he was obstinate with seniors,

he accomplished difficult missions. His units were the only

ones that broke the Confederate line at Fredericksburg, and

he was the trusted second in command to Hooker at Antietam.

Meade commanded the corps after Hooker was wounded at

Antietam; however, Meade—the professional, no-nonsense

Soldier—had a difficult time understanding the strategic intent

of President Lincoln after the Battle of Gettysburg and failed

to pursue and destroy the Army of Northern Virginia as Lincoln

desperately desired.

Hooker was confident in his ability to do a better job than

those assigned to the command before him, and he bragged

that he could do it better than anyone else. This overconfidence

spelled disaster for him at Chancellorsville, where he was

unable to accomplish the ends designated by the political

leadership. He did not seem to have a political affiliation, and

Lincoln saw his nonpartisanship as an advantage when placing

him in command. Perhaps after the debacles of McClellan and

Burnside, Lincoln saw in this braggart someone who could

bring about a victory. Some would say that Lincoln had few

other choices in January 1863. McClellan had “the slows,”

and Burnside orchestrated the disaster at Fredericksburg.

Hooker had bragged that he could whip “Bobby” Lee, but he

was unable to carry out his boasts and achieve the end state

envisioned by America’s political leaders.

Represent the Organization

“Whether by nuance or overt presentation, strategic

leaders vigorously and constantly represent who the Army

is, what it’s doing, and where it’s going. The audience is the

Army itself, as well as the rest of the world. There’s an

especially powerful responsibility to explain things to the

American people, who support their Army with money and

lives. Whether working with other branches of government,

federal agencies, the media, other militaries, the other

services, or their own organizations, strategic leaders rely

increasingly on writing and public speaking (conferences

and press briefings) to reinforce the Army’s central messages.

Because so much of this communication is directed at outside

agencies, strategic leaders avoid parochial language and

remain sensitive to the Army’s image.”8 These Civil War leaders

provide a message about the Army in the past. They present

an image of a professional force being created in a republic

that distrusted a standing military. These officers vigorously

represented the Army to the nation.

Sickles exemplifies the long-term representation of the

sacrifices that Union Soldiers made. He headed up the

monument commission that preserved and honored the

sacrifices of those who died in the conflict and was instrumental

in preserving the Gettysburg battlefield. When Sickles was

asked about a monument to himself, he replied that the entire

battlefield was a monument to him. In many ways, that is an

accurate statement. Sickles did provide a strategic

representation of the Army to us and to our posterity.

Meade represented the Army well as the hero of Gettysburg.

He continued to command the Army of the Potomac until the

end of the war. He reinforced the Army’s central message that
a professional Army was needed by the nation and was

promoted to the Regular Army rank of major general. Actions

taken by Grant assured control of the Army to the professional

Soldiers after the war, but Meade did not explain the Army

story to civilians or newspapers since he had no patience

with them.

Hooker is known to have structured the Army into separate

corps with recognizable insignias, enabling it to join units

from different states into cohesive, recognizable corps. His

efforts were communicated within the Army and helped

enhance its morale. His boasting and bravado provided the

Army with confidence in its ability to defeat the Army of

Northern Virginia. Even if the bravado was false, it

communicated the confidence that the commanding general

had in the Army he commanded. Hooker instilled considerable

pride in the Army.

Lead and Manage Change

“Strategic leaders deal with change by being proactive,

not reactive. They anticipate change even as they shield their

organizations from unimportant and bothersome influences;

they use the ‘change-drivers’ of technology, education,

doctrine, equipment, and organization to control the

direction and pace of change. Many agencies and

corporations have ‘futures’ groups charged with thinking

about tomorrow; strategic leaders and their advisory teams

are the Army’s ‘futures people’.”9 These Civil War strategic

leaders were caught by changing technology—especially the

introduction of the rifled musket—that was not accompanied

by the requisite change in doctrine and organization. The rifled

musket provided a technology that challenged all the paradigms

that these leaders believed, yet they remained wedded to the

Napoleonic doctrine of warfare. Rather than dealing with the

change by being proactive, they were reactive, and by the end

of the war the era of trench warfare had begun. It was a solution

forced on the strategic leaders in response to the withering

lethality of a new weapon.

Conclusion

Sickles, Meade, and Hooker successfully carried out some

of the strategic leadership tasks. It may be unfair to

judge these 19th century leaders by a modern standard of

strategic leadership tasks, because the atmosphere and

environment in which they served were much different. During

the Civil War, the Army was a small regular force filled out with

militia. The professional West Pointers were both the heroes

and heels of the war. In the beginning, Congress blamed the

state of readiness on the nearest target—the professional Army.

However, the Congress, whose responsibility is to provide for

the common defense, was a major reason for those failures.

Sickles, Meade, and Hooker offer interesting contrasts among

strategic leaders. A pragmatic politician, an obstinate

professional Soldier, and a backstabbing braggart all had an

impact on what our Army became. We can learn from both the

positive and negative examples of past strategic leaders such

as these. Above all, we learn that strategic leadership is a

difficult and complex enterprise.

Dr. Swain is the Director of Quality Assurance for Training

at the United States Army Maneuver Support Center, Fort

Leonard Wood, Missouri. He holds a graduate certificate in

instructional design for online learning from Capella

University; a master’s in educational administration from

the University of North Carolina–Charlotte; a master’s in

military science from the Army War College at Carlisle,

Pennsylvania, and a doctorate of philosophy in education.

Endnotes

1

 Field Manual 22-100, Army Leadership, 31 August 1999,

p. 7-8; accessed 23 April 2005.

2

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Program

Evaluation Glossary,” 2004; available from <http://

www.epa.gov/evaluate/glossary/c-esd.htm>; accessed

23 April 2005.

3

 FM 22-100, p. 7-8.

4

 Ibid. p. 7-17

5

 John Heiser “Voices of Battle: Gettysburg,” 1998; available

from <http://www.nps.gov/gett/getttour/sidebar/meadebio

htm>; accessed 23 April 2005.

6

 FM 22-100, p. 7-19.

7

 Ibid. p. 7-17.

8

 Ibid. p. 7-15.

9

 Ibid. p. 7-24.

Bibliography

Beatie, Russel. The Army of the Potomac: Birth of

Command. Volume 1. 5 vols. Cambridge: DaCapo Press, 2002.

Boritt, Gabor S. Lincoln’s Generals, ed. Gabor S. Boritt.

New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Field Manual 22-100, Army Leadership. United States Army,

31 August 1999, accessed 23 April 2005.

Goss, Thomas J. The War Within the Union High Command:

Politics and Generalship During the Civil War. Lawrence:

University Press of Kansas, 2003.

Heiser, John “Voices of Battle – Gettysburg,” 1998; available

from <http://www.nps.gov/gett/getttour/sidebar/meadebio.

htm>; accessed 23 April 2005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Program Evaluation

Glossary,” 2004; available from <http://www.epa.gov/

evaluate/glossary/c-esd.htm>; accessed 23 April 2005.

Williams, T. Harry. Lincoln and His Generals. New York:

Random House, 1952.

April-June 2007 Engineer 47
48 Engineer April-June 2007

T.

he 58th Transportation Battalion at Fort Leonard Wood,

Missouri, received official notification in April that it

had won the Army Award for Maintenance Excellence

for its category. Not only does the unit have a great

maintenance program, it also embraces environmentally

friendly technology that has saved thousands of dollars. The

battalion uses several technologies to reduce operational costs

while helping the environment: fuel-motor oil blending and

battery and air filter reclamation.

The battalion uses a fuel-motor oil blending process to

save on fuel and operating costs for handling and disposing

of waste motor oil. The blending process, which mixes fuel

with used motor oil that would otherwise be discarded, is simple

and only occurs while a vehicle is being serviced. The blending

system consists of the blending machine with filters, two fuel

tank hoses, and an oil pan and hose. The mechanic uses the

following steps to blend the fuel with the motor oil:

 Insert two hoses into the vehicle fuel tank. One hose

delivers fuel to the blender, and the other delivers blended

fuel back to the fuel tank.

 Place the oil pan under the vehicle’s drain plug, and connect

the hose to the blending machine.

 Drain motor oil into the oil pan.

 Turn the timer to the appropriate time, and turn on the

machine.

 Continue with services while the machine blends the fuel

and the used motor oil automatically.

In 2005, the first year the battalion mechanics blended fuel,

they reused 771 gallons of motor oil. In 2006, they reused more

than 2,500 gallons of motor oil. The unit realized a savings of

over $7,200 in the first two years. This savings is mainly from

the fuel the battalion did not have to buy, since each gallon of

used motor oil blended equals a gallon of fuel. From an

environmental point of view, this technology significantly

reduces a waste stream.

By Mr. Michael T. Wolford

Fuel-motor oil blending system machine recyles

waste motor oil.

A maintenance worker for the 58th Transportation

Battalion demonstrates the fuel-motor oil blending

process.
April-June 2007 Engineer 49

The battalion has also increased operational efficiency by

recovering its dead vehicle batteries. Most of the dead batteries

are unusable because the battery plates collect a lead sulfate

buildup that prevents the battery from accepting a charge.

The battalion has acquired a recharging system that recovers

dead batteries by removing the lead sulfate deposits and then

recharging the batteries. Each system costs about $250,

recovers 12 batteries at a time, and takes approximately

48 hours to charge the batteries. The battalion turned in

373 batteries to the Directorate of Logistics (DOL) from July to

November 2006. DOL considered 142 of those batteries to be

“bad,” meaning they would not accept a charge. The remaining

231 batteries were charged by DOL and returned to the

battalion. Once the battalion’s recharging system was in place,

the number of batteries turned in to DOL dropped by more

than two thirds to 103. Of those 103 batteries, 90 were coded as

bad. The battalion’s recharging technology has saved the unit

over $9,000 in replacement costs and inventory reduction in

just five months. The unit has promoted sustainable systems

and helped the environment by keeping more than 270 batteries

in use.

 Finally, the battalion recycles its air filters by sending them

to a private firm in nearby Rolla, Missouri, to be cleaned and

reused. The filters are cheaper to clean than to replace, and

the private firm can clean most air filters up to five times. Since

January 2006, the battalion has saved over $2,500 by using

this system.

The 58th Transportation Battalion has realized savings of

over $18,000 in the past two years from three technologies

that also promote sustainability and protect the environment.

Fuel-motor oil blending and the battery recovery systems are

technologies that can be used in deployed situations to divert

waste streams to usable products. These technologies are

reasonably priced, and the fuel-motor oil blender has a General

Services Administration catalog number: GS-07F-0187M.

For more information concerning these technologies, e-mail

<michael.wolford1@us.army.mil> or call 573-329-1927.

Mr. Wolford is an environmental training specialist for

the Directorate of Environmental Integration at the United

States Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

He recently retired from the Army after more than 24 years of

service. He holds a bachelor’s in environmental science from

Drury University, Springfield, Missouri, and is currently

working on a master’s in environmental management from

Webster University, St. Louis, Missouri.

Environmentally friendly technology, such as the vehicle battery recovery system, helps save resources.
50 Engineer April-June 2007

S.

oldiers from the 875th Engineer Company,

505th Engineer Battalion, North Carolina Army National

Guard, have been clearing topsoil for a future

construction project at the University of North Carolina –

Charlotte (UNCC) as training this year. A member of the unit

who is an employee of UNCC helped organize the project.

This was the unit’s first engineering project since its return

from Iraq in September 2006. The project is one example of

how the North Carolina Army National Guard supports the

community, no matter what the need.

The engineers were tasked to transport 5,000 cubic yards

of topsoil two miles to a dump site on the UNCC campus

beginning in late April. They used six 20-ton dump trucks that

rotated between two loading points to transport loads to the

designated dump site. A D7 bulldozer whirled through the

mound, loosening the soil for a hydraulic excavator operator

to scoop up and drop into the dump trucks. Two of the trucks

developed minor maintenance problems that were taken care

of on the spot by the Soldiers of the maintenance section,

who were armed with a portable toolbox and their trusty

multitools. They categorize themselves as the “backbone of

the unit,” ready and willing to repair with care.

The 16 Soldiers on the site agreed that this project was

good training, good for retention, and good for readiness

redeployment. Honking the horn of a dump truck as UNCC

students passed by waving and shouting support, one Soldier

said that he is up for reenlistment and ready for another 6-year

term. Serving in Iraq gave him a sense of overwhelming pride

in his country, a feeling that is different from accomplishing

tasks in the civilian sector. He felt he made a difference in the

lives of the Iraqi people and is proud of the work his unit

accomplishes on the home front, whether it’s removing debris

after a hurricane or moving soil at a state university.

Specialist McClary is assigned to the Public Affairs Office

of the North Carolina Army National Guard.

Engineer Training Benefits School

By Specialist Ruth McClary

A hydraulic excavator fills one of the six 20-ton dump

trucks on the project.

Photo by Sergeant Jessica L. Sheldon

Photo by Sergeant Jessica L. Sheldon
April-June 2007 Engineer 51

Shortly before Soldiers from

3d Brigade Combat Team (BCT),

10th Mountain Division, handed

over control of their area of operations to

the unit due to replace them, engineers

from 3d Platoon, Alpha Company,

3d Brigade Special Troops Battalion,

3d BCT, 10th Mountain Division, worked

hard to ensure that the incoming Soldiers

had decent accommodations and

facilities.

Even though 3d Platoon had been at

the forward operating base (FOB) for

more than a year, there was still a lot of

work for the sappers to do, inside and

outside the base. Since defeating the

Taliban is the most important job for the

new unit, the engineers wanted to make a

stable base so the new arrivals could do

their job of clearing the way for a secure

Afghanistan without worrying about

facilities.

Facilitating the fight is a concept the commander of Alpha

Company stands behind. The FOB is supporting many more

Soldiers than it was set up for, so it has been expanded to

house more people, and that includes changes in infrastructure.

By Specialist Jon H. Arguello

Engineers Pave the Way

for Victory

The expansion has also benefited the local population.

Construction and base development brought an influx of jobs

and business to the area, improving the local economy. The

more legitimate money infused into the economy, the easier it

is to move the local population away from the trade in

illegal narcotics.

The dedication of the engineers to

the mission—right up to their

redeployment—was impressive. The

purpose of the improvements and

expansion was to ensure that the

replacement Soldiers were set up for

success, allowing them to start combat

operations immediately instead

of worrying about base camp

construction. The members of

3d Platoon got their gratification from

knowing that the Soldiers replacing

them would be able to concentrate on

the fight.

Specialist Arguello is a journalist

with the 22d Mobile Public Affairs

Detachment, Combined Joint Task

A Soldier fixes a generator during a power outage. Force-82.

Photo by Specialist Jon H. Arguello

A combat engineer moves concertina wire to make room for an expanded

air resupply area.

Photo by Specialist Jon H. Arguello
52 Engineer April-June 2007

W.

hile many United States Army

Europe (USAREUR) units are

drawing down in size or preparing to

move back to the United States as the Army

transforms its forces, USAREUR’s 18th Engineer

Brigade will spend the next year building its

numbers in support of its new mission as a major

subordinate unit of V Corps. The brigade was

activated as part of USAREUR in 1942. It later

relocated to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, but

rejoined the USAREUR ranks when it moved

to Karlsruhe, Germany, in early 1977. The 18th

officially became a V Corps organization on

16 February 2007.

The Heidelberg-headquartered brigade is

moving in to pick up the mission that has long

rested on the shoulders of the 130th Engineer

Brigade and its subordinate units. The 130th—

based in Hanau, Germany—has served as the

V Corps premier deployable engineer organization since 1969. While some of its units, such

as the 54th Engineer Battalion and the 535th Engineer Battalion,

will merge with the 18th, most of the 130th will return to the

United States. That transition is scheduled to take place over

the next year.

Because the 18th is the only engineer brigade left in theater,

it will be responsible not only for V Corps but also for any

mission that USAREUR needs it for. In addition to routine

engineer tasks such as reconstruction of standing structures,

the unit will also become capable of undertaking heavy combat

engineer missions in peacetime environments, such as building

roads, and during deployments, such as clearing thoroughfares

of deadly improvised explosive devices (IEDs). (In April 2006,

the 18th completed a tour in Afghanistan in support of

Operation Enduring Freedom, where it undertook missions

in Bagram, Kandahar, Sarana, and other locations.)

The unit may get involved in troop construction, because

it has that capability. As an example, during the past few

months it accomplished road work at the Hohenfels (Germany)

Training Area. Other troop construction projects could include

billeting and forward operating bases.

The Soldiers of the 18th will also tackle vertical construction

missions such as buildings, bridges, and other structures that

enhance unit training exercises. Construction during exercises

is a valuable tool for continuing to train and retrain engineer

Soldiers in a peacetime setting, for keeping those Soldiers up

to date on new building technologies, and for assessing the

capabilities of new engineers.

Specialist Finch is a member of the V Corps Public Affairs

Office staff.

By Specialist Sean C. Finch

A HMMWV carrying Soldiers from Headquarters and Headquarters

Company, 18th Engineer Brigade, makes its way through the town of

Mokren, Bulgaria, during an exercise in summer 2004.
April-June 2007 Engineer 53

Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons

from Malaya and Vietnam, by John A. Nagl. The University of

Chicago Press: Chicago, Ill., 2002; rpt. 2005, 249 pages, ISBN

0-226-56770-2, $17.00 (paper).

“What does Nagl propose that is any

different than Galula, Trinquier, or

any of the other classic authors of

counterinsurgency warfare?” was the

question a recent graduate of the

Command and General Staff College

posed to me after I had spent an evening

reading this book whose title, quoted

from T.E. Lawrence, describes the slow

and messy nature of counterinsurgency

operations.

That was a fair question because as

many students of counterinsurgency are aware, these works often

present overarching concepts (such as legitimacy, commitment,

intelligence) and then leave the reader struggling to draw his own

conclusions on how they may be applied to a given contemporary

military operation.

However, I found an answer to the question in Nagl’s premise

that it is in the processes, not the concepts, where one finds the key

to defeating insurgencies. Nagl supports this premise by offering the

reader a process used throughout the book to examine the decisions

and actions taken or not taken by militaries in their effort to become

counterinsurgency learning organizations.

If the use of a systemic, iterative, organizational learning process

like the one Nagl employs sounds familiar, it should. Two recent

Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth commanding generals

have forwarded a similar construct called “The Engine of Change”

that is being put to use throughout our Army to support coalition

counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Specifically, military engineers may find Nagl’s work particularly

familiar because it allows for structured thought while examining

emerging counterinsurgency doctrine. After introducing the reader

with his methodology in the early chapters, Nagl demonstrates how

it can be applied to analyze the development of counterinsurgency

doctrine and practice during the British Malayan Emergency from

1948 to 1960 and again with the doctrine the United States developed

in the Vietnam War from 1950 to 1975.

At the conclusion of the Malayan Emergency and Vietnam War

analyses, Nagl leaves the reader well positioned to personalize and

apply this approach for immediate use in military transition teams,

provincial reconstruction teams, and full-spectrum operations.

Reviewed by Lieutenant Colonel Paul B. Olsen, P.E., Speechwriter

to the Commanding General, Combined Arms Center and Fort

Leavenworth, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Book Reviews

○○○○○

Looking for a Hero: Staff Sergeant Joe Ronnie Hooper and the

Vietnam War, by Peter Maslowski and Don Winslow, University of

Nebraska Press: Lincoln, 2004, 618 pages, ISBN 0-8032-3244-6,

$29.95 (hardcover).

This book covers the tragic life of Staff

Sergeant Joe Ronnie Hooper, arguably the

most decorated soldier of the Vietnam War.

In addition to two Silver Stars, six Bronze

Stars, and eight Purple Hearts, he was

presented the Medal of Honor for

actions near Hue in February 1968. At

the time, he was assigned to Delta

Company, 2d Battalion, 501st Infantry,

101st Airborne Division.

Looking for a Hero takes you through

Hooper’s life and military career, as well

as discusses the Vietnam War itself. Although this book contains

detailed and valuable information about the war, it does have a biased

tone and does not lend itself to being an objective source for learning

about the Vietnam War. But Maslowski and Winslow’s extreme

thoroughness in telling Hooper’s story offsets their antimilitary

bias and makes their work a more than respectable contribution

to the Vietnam War literature. At times, the book seems to be

more about the war than about Hooper. But in many ways, Hooper

serves as a symbol for that conflict; his life had so many highs

and lows, paralleling the upheavals in American society during

the war.

Looking for a Hero gives you the objective truth about Joe

Hooper’s life and leaves you either respecting him or disliking him.

Every Medal of Honor recipient is a hero; but some, like Hooper, are

not saints. What this book does is show you that all heroes are

human, and the events that made them heroes become quite a heavy

load to carry.

The sad part of Hooper‘s life, as with many veterans of the

Vietnam War, was the post-traumatic stress disorder that he suffered

from. Neither Hooper nor American society knew how to handle the

problems that grew out of this. The combination of drugs and/or

alcohol added to the disorder for many veterans and often destroyed

not only them but their families as well.

Hopefully, America has learned from the war in Vietnam and is

preparing itself and facilities to help the veterans of the War on

Terrorism deal with the horrors of war and the injuries they have

sustained.

Reviewed by Mr. Jeffrey L. Rosemann, an instructional systems

specialist with the Officers Training Development Division,

Directorate of Training and Leader Development, United States Army

Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. A retired infantry

Soldier, he also served as the 2d Infantry Division historian.

○○○○○