United States Army Engineer School

573-563-8080 / DSN 676-8080

COMMANDANT

MG Randal R. Castro

563-6116

<randal.castro@us.army.mil>

ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

BG 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 Dennis V. Smith

563-8046

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

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC Shawn P. Howley

563-7116

<shawn-howley@us.army.mil>

TRADOC SYSTEMS MANAGER – ASSURED MOBILITY

COL Robert Nicholson

563-4081

<robert.nicholson@us.army.mil>

TRADOC PROGRAM INTEGRATION OFFICE–TERRAIN DATA

COL Thomas Crabtree

329-1908

<thomas.crabtree@us.army.mil>

COMMANDER, 1st ENGINEER BRIGADE

COL 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

563-4129

<rebecca.johnson1@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF FUTURES CENTER–ENGINEER

COL Richard M. Hornack

563-7955

<richard.hornack@us.army.mil>

HUMANITARIAN DEMINING TRAINING CENTER

Mr. Rodney A. Robideau

596-3870

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

COUNTER EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS CENTER

LTC Kent D. Savre

593-4085

<kent.savre@us.army.mil>

Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is 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:

PETER J. SCHOOMAKER

General, United States Army

Chief of Staff

Official:

JOYCE E. MORROW

Administrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army 0611703
ENGI

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

NEER

 Engineer 1 April-June 2006

COMMANDANT

Major General

Randal R. Castro

FEATURES

12 The Essayons Award

 By Lieutenant Colonel Anthony C. Funkhouser

13 What Is Geospatial Engineering?

Compiled by Lieutenant Colonel Michael Hendricks, Major David P. Burris,

and Master Sergeant Donald Murray

14 The Joint Geospatial-Intelligence Activity

 By Lieutenant Colonel Richard E. Barrowman

15 GeoPDF Map Files – All Regional Digital Maps on One DVD

By Mr. Ken Bergman and Mr. Ray Caputo

17 Developing IGRS – Engineers Create the Iraq Geospatial Reference

System

By Colonel Mark Yenter, Lieutenant Colonel Tedd A. Wheeler, Captain

Juan R. Mejia, First Lieutenant Kenneth R. Joyce, and Mr. Michael Cline

19 Speeding Intel to Mapmakers on the Battlefield – The BAS in Iraq

By First Lieutenant Bridget Strom

20 Winning the Economic Firefight –Translating Reconstruction Into

Combat Power

By Colonel Christopher J. Toomey

23 Military Transition Teams

By Captain Andrew D. Swedberg

25 2d Annual Best Sapper Competition

By Mr. Christian DeLuca

28 Contingency Base Camp Workshop

By Mr. Michael Wolford

30 Military Firefighters Host Conference

By Ms. Allison Choike

31 Canal Renovation

By Specialist Spencer J. Case

32 Bridging the Canals

By First Lieutenant Waukemsha Kirkpatrick

35 Command and Control of a Heavy Engineer Task Force

By Second Lieutenant Joseph P. Morsello

37 Bosnian Troops Assist With UXO Removal in Iraq

By Specialist Spencer J. Case

39 Need Engineering Help? Contact the EI2RC

By Lieutenant Colonel Joseph K. Miller

40 2006 Army Deployment Excellence Awards

By Mr. Charles K. Ledebuhr

42 No Mission Too Far, No Water Too Cold for the United States Army Dive

Company (Provisional)

By Sergeant Tyler Dodd and First Lieutenant Timothy Mitroka

44 Task Force Ripper – Rapid Pothole/Pavement Repair

By First Lieutenant Christopher T. Dening

47 Air Base Dorm Takes Off in Arctic

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

April-June 2006 Headquarters, Department of the Army Volume 36 PB 5-06-2

Front Cover: Artwork by Melody

E. Clanton, United States Army

Corps of Engineers

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Major General

Randal R. Castro

03 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major

Clinton J. Pearson

34 Dedication

38 Regimental Awards

45 Book Reviews - “Voices

from the Korean War,”

“Undaunted Courage,”

and “Jarhead”

By Mr. Jeffrey L. Rosemann

49 Past in Review - “Robert E.

Lee and the Importance of

Engineer Reconnaissance”

By Lieutenant Colonel

Kevin Dougherty (Retired)

52 Book Review - “The

Peninsula Campaign of

1862: A Military Analysis”

By Lieutenant Colonel

Kevin Dougherty (Retired)

53 Engineer Update

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

Jennifer Morgan

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Karin Gan

Kathy Webber

MANAGING EDITOR

Shirley Bridges

EDITOR

Cheryl Green

UNITED STATES ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL
2 Engineer April-June 2006

Clear The Way

By Major General Randal R. Castro

Commandant, United States Army Engineer School

Our Vision

Welcome to our Summer issue

of Engineer. I want to begin

this issue by thanking all the

great Soldiers who are serving our country each and every day. We cannot thank

you enough for all the tasks you accomplish day in and day out.

I recently spoke to the leadership of the

Regiment at ENFORCE and described our

vision for the next two years. What I want

to do in this issue is share this vision with

you. I want to tell you all the great things

we are accomplishing as a Regiment. If you

were not able to attend ENFORCE, the

slides can be found under Army Knowledge Online (AKO)

files (Select the Site Map tab, then Organizational Sites,

MACOMs, TRADOC, Schools [right column], Engineer,

and MG Castro’s ENFORCE 2006 Brief).

I have received many e-mails from across the Army telling

me about all the missions you are doing every day. As you

have all told me, our engineers are performing many missions outside of our Cold War-era focus of high-intensity

combat operations. We are rebuilding nations, constructing

base camps, conducting route clearance missions, and supporting our citizens’ recovery after hurricanes Katrina and

Rita—while continuing to transform to our Modular Engineer Force. These missions range across a broad spectrum

of requirements for our engineers. Why are we busier than

ever and supporting this broad array of missions? The reason is twofold: our contemporary operating environment

(COE) has changed, and our doctrine and national security

strategy are changing.

First, the environment we are fighting in has ever-increasing requirements for the capability sets we engineers bring

to the battlefield while fighting an asymmetric enemy. The

demands of fighting in urban and complex terrain place an

increased reliance on what we engineers need to do to support our maneuver and joint commanders. Secondly, our recently published National Security Strategy captures this

and, as a result, has placed stability operations on equal par and priority as combat

operations. This profound change expands

our mission-essential task list (METL) and

is a major rebalancing of our mission set.

FM 3-0, Operations, (2006 draft) will highlight this difference and will broaden civil

support to homeland security. These increasing requirements for engineers make our

Regiment more indispensable than ever to

our Army and our Nation.

To take the lead in this changing landscape, I have reread our current Engineer

School Vision and the Regimental Vision.

Engineer School Vision

– A world-class center of expertise in joint engineer

capabilities

– Recognized leader in developing doctrine, units, and

equipment capable of assuring the mobility of the

land force—anytime, anywhere!

– World’s best trainer of military engineers for an Army

serving a Nation at war

Regimental Vision

– Assure freedom of maneuver for the land force and maintain relevance to the Nation

As you can see, the School and Regimental visions are broad,

and there is a distinct gap between the two. I intend to focus on

this gap and provide you a clearer road map ahead for the next

two years.

I believe that there are three essential tasks we must continue to accomplish from now through FY08: We must continue

to support the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT); we must complete the transformation of the Regiment; and we must posture

the Regiment for the next transformation in order to remain indispensable to our Army and the Nation. These are the three

major lines of operations on which we are moving forward, and

I want to synchronize our efforts.

(Continued on page 4)

The Regimental Vision through FY08 is to continue to support GWOT with trained modular organization

and complete the modular force and institutional transformation, while posturing for the next transformation.
Lead The Way

By Command Sergeant Major Clinton J. Pearson

United States Army Engineer School

April-June 2006 Engineer 3

G.

reetings once again, and welcome

to another issue of Engineer. This

has been a very busy quarter for

our Regiment. Among the many events that

took place were our annual ENFORCE Conference, which included the 2d Annual Best

Sapper Competition and the dedication of

the Sapper Statue at the Engineer Memorial

Grove. We were honored to have Mrs. Brigit

Smith with us for the unveiling of the Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith Medal of

Honor plaque at the Memorial Grove. Mrs.

Smith also dedicated the Medal of Honor

Flag to the Regiment; the Flag is proudly

displayed in the Regimental room.

ENFORCE week ended with the Regimental dinner and presentation of the annual Regimental awards, which included

the Itschner and Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader

(Grizzly) Awards, the Sturgis Medal, and the Van Autreve

Award. The recipients of these awards—from the Active Army,

United States Army Reserve, and the Army National Guard—

are listed on page 38. The 2006 Best Sapper Competition winners are listed on page 26. The recipient of the 2006 Gold

deFleury Medal was Major General Jack Waggener (Retired).

This year, Lieutenant General Carl A. Strock, Chief of Engineers, awarded a second Gold deFleury posthumously to

Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith. Mrs. Smith accepted the

medal in his honor.

We continue to improve our training here at Fort Leonard

Wood. A few courses that are going well include the Route

Reconnaissance/Clearance Operations Course, the IED Defeat Train the Trainer (IEDD T3) Course, and the Urban Mobility Breaching Course. I need assistance from the field in

supporting the Mine Dog Course. At the same time, we have

taken some of the functional courses and inserted them into

initial-entry training (IET), the Advanced Noncommissioned

Officer Course (ANCOC), the Basic Noncommissioned Officer

Course (BNCOC), the Officer Basic Course (OBC), and the

Captain’s Career Course (CCC). These courses will be the foundation of how we will build our forces over the next couple of

years.

Today’s Noncommissioned Officer Education System

(NCOES) is a rigid, task-based system designed around the

select-train-promote model, instead of training the NCOs for a

mission and wide range of assignments that are encountered

on today’s battlefield. NCOES should remain focused on the

core areas of leading, training, maintaining

standards, caring for Soldiers, technical

competencies, and tactical warrior skills,

while integrating greater conceptual and interpersonal skills. We must ensure that we

continue to provide first-class training to a

first-class NCO Corps. We have identified

the need to support the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model by providing

an opportunity for NCOs to receive training at home station. The goal is to continue

to send NCOs to resident courses; however, when the opportunity and need arise,

we will send a mobile training team (MTT)

to conduct the training. We have an opportunity to send an MTT to Fort Bragg this summer to teach

BNCOC, which will allow Soldiers to remain at home with their

families and attend the course.

As we continue transforming to a Modular Engineer Force,

we will activate the 4th Engineer Battalion at Fort Carson. In

FY07, the following units will be activated: 326th Engineer

Battalion, 62d Engineer Battalion, 7th Engineer Battalion, and

the 11th Engineer Battalion. We reflagged the 36th Engineer

Group to the 36th Engineer Brigade and will relocate the unit

to Fort Hood. I would like to personally welcome the 94th

Engineer Battalion advance party from Grafenwoehr, Germany,

as it begins to restation here at Fort Leonard Wood. Some of

these great Soldiers are here preparing their motor pool and

headquarters to receive the main body. Fort Leonard Wood

welcomes these great Wolverine Warriors.

I would like to congratulate Sergeant Major Terrence

Murphy, who was appointed to the rank of Command Sergeant Major. It was a great honor for Brigadier General Todd

T. Semonite and me to promote this great Soldier. We wish him

and his family the best as he moves on to take a great battalion

at Fort Hood.

Once again, I would like to say thank you for all of your

efforts and contributions in supporting the Global War on

Terrorism; we continue to transform the Regiment. As each

day comes, let us keep in mind all the families of the Soldiers

who have given their lives for this great Nation. There is no

greater love than for a man to lay down his life for a friend or

brother.

Essayons!
4 Engineer April-June 2006

Support to GWOT

Our No.1 priority and our first line of operation is support to GWOT. Since 2001, we have continually captured your lessons learned from Operation Enduring

Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), brought

those back to our school, and used them to change doctrine

and what we teach in preparing our Soldiers and units for war.

It is a significant revolution from how we conducted business

since the post-Desert Storm period. This revolution begins

with you and all of your Soldiers who have been there and

done that! I see three subrevolutions in supporting the GWOT:

training, support, and communications. In the next two years,

I expect to bring many of our revolutionary initiatives to

completion.

Training. The first revolution is in training. If you have

been to Fort Leonard Wood recently and attended any school

from Basic Training to the Engineer Captain’s Career Course

or a functional course, you have experienced part of this

change. We have immersed Fort Leonard Wood into a COE

where scenario-based training is the standard. At the most

basic level, our training maps reflect Arabic names and scenarios in all our training. The entire post replicates a combat

theater. We have surged to construct eight military operations

on urbanized terrain (MOUT) sites, including Iraqi villages;

nine forward operating bases (FOBs); five shoot houses; and

two convoy live-fire ranges and have modified numerous

ranges to reflect the COE. More than any other school in

TRADOC! Our convoy live-fire range, a realistic scenario-based

training opportunity for our trainees, replicates improvised explosive device (IED) and insurgent attacks. We have a weapons immersion program for our Soldiers, where they maintain

their weapons with them at all times and learn the fundamentals of weapon discipline, just like our deployed Soldiers.

Another change you will find includes our initial-entry training (IET). The days of drill sergeants breaking down trainees

and eliminating them immediately have passed. Drill sergeants

treat everyone as a “Soldier from Day One.” The focus is on

maintaining the standards while using coaching, teaching,

mentoring, motivating, and training to lift those who need a

little extra time. This method has reduced attrition and kept

young men and women in the Army who volunteered and

have a desire to serve our Nation. At the same time, we have

increased the rigor: five times as much field time, advanced

rifle marksmanship, and total combat task focus in order for us

to not just get Soldiers ready for their first unit, but to get them

ready for combat!

In our Officer Education System, we have increased contingency training, integrated our transformed unit modified

tables of organization and equipment (MTOEs), and significantly increased hands-on explosive hazards and IED training. This summer we will take Basic Officer Leader Course II

and III into full implementation, and our new lieutenants will

go to Fort Benning or Fort Sill to receive common-core training before arriving at Fort Leonard Wood for their functional

training. We also have a new pilot course—the Joint Engineer

Officer Course—which is an 80-hour course (distributed

(“Clear the Way,” continued from page 2)
April-June 2006 Engineer 5

learning and resident) to prepare our captains and majors to

serve on joint staffs.

The most significant changes are in our functional courses.

Before GWOT, we had only the Precommand Course and the

Sapper Leader Course. Now we have 12 courses, including

the Urban Mobility Breaching Course, the Route Reconnaissance/Clearance Operations Course (both mechanical and robotic), the IED Defeat Train the Trainer (IEDD T3) Course, the

Advanced Search Course, and the Explosive Ordnance Clearance Agent (EOCA) Course. We are constantly evaluating

requirements for additional training. At the same time, we are

taking the critical tasks from our functional courses and inserting them into IET, the Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC), the Basic Noncommissioned Officer

Course (BNCOC), the Officer Basic Course (OBC), and the

Captain’s Career Course (CCC). This is a tremendous effort to

better prepare and train our engineer Soldiers based on lessons learned in theater. These courses will be the foundation

of how we train the force for GWOT over the next two years.

Support. The second revolution of supporting the fight

has evolved significantly from pre-OIF to now. The Counter

Explosive Hazards Center (CEHC) was established in 2002 to

support a recognized gap in explosive hazards and work the

doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) integration of

these solutions. With the ever-increasing IED threat in theater, the Department of Defense (DOD) has recognized the

need to rapidly train and equip the force with the skills and

tools to predict, prevent, detect, neutralize, and mitigate IEDs

for all deploying forces (assured mobility).

There are three major pillars of support to this effort:

 The first pillar is the TRADOC Integrated Capabilities Development Team (ICDT). Over the next two years, we will

continue to play a critical role in this team, integrating the

various school efforts to develop, teach, and integrate individual, crew, leader, small-unit, and functional training

courses.

 The second pillar is the Joint Center of Excellence, which

has the mission to support units as they prepare for deployment at the training centers and to provide combined

arms training for these forces.

 The third pillar is the Joint IED Defeat Organization and

Army Staff that will organize, develop, synchronize, and

integrate solutions across the DOTMLPF spectrum for

IED defeat in urban and complex terrain for DOD and the

Army.

Together, these organizations will develop systemic processes

to improve training and develop technological and materiel solutions to defeat IEDs and all counter explosive hazards.

These organizations realize there is no “silver bullet” solution to solve the IED threat and that this incredibly tough

mission can only be accomplished in a system-of-systems

approach. Our IED Defeat Task Force and the CEHC developed a Silver Path that looks at how we train the force to

defeat the “device” and also defeat the IED system. The Silver

Path takes the fundamentals of assured mobility as a framework and builds on it to improve our ability to exploit lessons

learned and defeat the enemy.
6 Engineer April-June 2006

Integrating these lessons learned is absolutely the most

important aspect of our functional courses and drives success on the core of our Silver Path. For example, the Advanced

Search Course evolved from an identified gap in skills and

tools for maneuver forces and engineers. The course teaches

our sappers the latest tactics, techniques, and procedures for

the conduct of area, route, person, and occupied and unoccupied building searches.

Another area where we are closing a gap is the engineer/

explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) integration. Our engineer

skills have changed focus over the years since Vietnam (booby

traps), Desert Storm (mobility), the Balkans (mines/unexploded

ordnance [UXO]) to now OEF/OIF (IEDs/captured enemy ammunition [CEA]). This broader spectrum of requirements and

greater demands has developed a gap between EOD personnel and engineers. We are closing this gap with the EOCA

Course, FMI 3-34.119, Improvised Explosive Device Defeat,

etc. We have even exchanged officers and noncommissioned

officers in critical positions between the Engineer and the Ordnance Schools. Over the next two years, we plan to close this

gap completely and seamlessly conduct operations with EOD

personnel on the battlefield.

Communications. The third and final revolution is in how

we communicate. I want us to truly change into a collaborative community in the next two years. In the past, the Engineer

School talked to units via e-mail or telephone, the United States

Army Corps of Engineers® used TeleEngineering Kits, and

units talked in isolated conversations between commanders

and their staffs. But today, we are establishing the Battle Command Knowledge System (BCKS), which is a collaborative

Web site within AKO that allows you to converse simultaneously with your peers with recent experience or instructors

at schools to discuss various subjects. It should be as easy as

switching between your e-mail and another screen, allowing

you to converse on any range of subjects that pertain to you

or your unit. BCKS will allow us to tap into everyone simultaneously and to provide the ultimate reachback capability.

Implementing these dramatic changes in our support to GWOT

is essential but is also directly linked to our successful

transformation.
April-June 2006 Engineer 7

Complete the Transformation

Our second line of operation is to complete the transformation. We began this journey a few years agowith an analysis of how we would transform as part

of the Army’s modular force structure. We took an offensive

and aggressive look at modularizing the Regiment and reducing the number of MTOEs, military occupational specialties

(MOSs), etc., while identifying the critical engineer support

requirements in the brigade combat teams (BCTs) and the engineer forces that would be force-pooled above the division

level. This required a paradigm shift of how we would organize, train, and fight the Engineer Regiment.

Organization. If you look at how we were organized before

the transformation, you will see that the majority of our combat engineer battalions were embedded in brigades and divisions prepared to fight for a predetermined fight (symmetric or

force-on-force). However, as we move through this transformation, our objective is to organize by embedding an engineer

company in the BCTs and force-pooling the remaining engineers above the division for maximum flexibility in taskorganizing for an undetermined type of fight.

Training. How we train will change as well. We will transition our collective training from METL focus to initially a modular capabilities focus.

Fighting. Finally, how we fight will evolve as well. We will

go from fighting engineer companies with battalion-level

command and control to focusing on engineer mission teams

(EMTs) and engineer mission forces (EMFs) (task-organized

modules at the company level [EMTs], and task-organized

modules and/or EMT engineer task forces [EMFs]). These

units will be fighting independently or in support of BCTs and

divisions. We will also shift from our two common scenarios

of Europe and Southwest Asia to having the flexibility to not

only fight any enemy, anywhere in the world, but also be able

to task-organize ourselves for the particular requirement of

the force.

When the transformation began, I explained to many of

you that we would experience a trough because several of our

engineer battalions and organizations would be temporarily

reduced. During a two-year period, engineer units would inactivate, waiting for BCTs to stand up within the Army personnel constraints until they would activate again as a forcepooled organization. Your school house and FORSCOM realized that this did not make sense, and they have worked diligently to convert units sooner in lieu of inactivating and then

activating them. We all know this is no small feat. The result is

that we were able to move a handful of battalions forward into

FY06 and FY07. In fact, we stood up two engineer battalions

already in FY06 and will stand up five more in FY07. The result is

that instead of waiting until 2011 to get our battalions back, most

of them will be in place within the next few months. We will even

come out of the transformation with more engineer company

command opportunities than before the transformation!
It has not been easy for this transformation to take place.

As many of you know, we are trying to resource GWOT, transform units, and move organizations in accordance with Base

Realignment and Closure (BRAC) requirements. Sometimes a

unit gets caught trying to do all three. In response, the Engineer School has stood up a Fusion Cell to deconflict these

issues. The Cell meets every Friday via telephone and videoteleconference with representatives from FORSCOM, Department of the Army, unit commanders, Army Materiel Command

(AMC), etc., to work through their issues. It is working. We

have a plan for all these Active Army units to transform in the

next few years. But more importantly, the National Guard and

Reserve have a plan that dovetails ours and complements

capabilities and command and control throughout the Regiment. The National Guard transformation is led by the respective states, and the Reserve is led by the four Regional Readiness Sustainment Commands (RRSCs).

As these units come on line, we will see more of our modules being tailored for specific missions. Force-pooled engineer units will organize similar to the way maneuver company

teams and task forces organize for specific missions. For example, an engineer brigade may receive a mission to perform a

stability/reconstruction operation. The brigade commander

assigns a battalion commander to take his battalion headquarters module to command and control a mission force. He provides him modules from other battalions that include a survey

section, two horizontal companies, one vertical company, and

a sapper company. We have now mission-tailored his organization into an EMF.

If you understand how this will occur, you will understand

that the role of the engineer battalion commander at home

station will be twofold: The force-pooled battalion commander

will provide training, readiness, and oversight (TRO) for “training modules to excellence” and prepare his staff for fighting

subordinate organizations as EMTs and EMFs. This will facilitate how we integrate into the Army Force Generation

(ARFORGEN) process. Engineer brigade commanders will provide TRO over multiple battalions that may be stationed at

other installations. By 2008, every force-pooled battalion and

separate engineer organization will be assigned within one of

our engineer brigades.

The ARFORGEN process is the objective. We are not currently organized in this manner, but that is the intent over the

next couple of years. It is defined as a structured progression

of increased unit readiness over time, resulting in recurring

periods of availability of trained, ready, and cohesive units

prepared for operational deployment in support of regional

combatant commander requirements.

The way it will work is not difficult to understand. A unit

starts in the reset/train pool. At this time, an engineer unit is

force-pooled under a brigade headquarters. They will provide

TRO of their subordinate engineer modules. Units during this

phase will reconstitute, reset equipment, field new equipment,

reassign and receive new personnel, and train. The training is

capabilities-based, focusing on module METLs and preparing for EMT/EMF staff proficiency.

8 Engineer April-June 2006
When units move to the ready pool, they will be assigned

a specific deployment mission or be available as a ready force.

The units assigned a deployment order will task-organize into

EMT/EMFs and train with a focus on mission-based theater

April-June 2006 Engineer 9

METL. Engineer units will be tailored for the specific mission

requirements. The ready units will continue to train, focused

on capabilities-based requirements of an operational plan or

their core METL.

Finally, in the available pool, units with deployment orders

will deploy and conduct their missions. The ready pool units

may be task-organized for another deployment mission, sent

on a contingency mission, or possibly not deploy but remain

in a ready pool. The process is cyclic and will maintain each

unit at an appropriate readiness rate depending on where it is

in the process.
To complete the transformation, we will continue to improve our materiel systems. We have a great team that has

increased our Program Objective Memorandum (POM) FY08

to FY13 requirements to $10.6 billion. This includes upgrades

to our equipment and new purchases such as the Armored

Breach Vehicle and the Joint Assault Bridge. Additionally, there

has been a significant fielding plan for our route clearance

missions. We have more than half of our desired end state of

seven route clearance companies fielded with Buffalos, Interim Vehicle-Mounted Mine Detectors (IVMMDs), and

RG-31 Mine Protected Vehicles. Our construction equipment

will be entered into the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP)

and reset while we work to up-armor the fleet of Deployable

Universal Combat Earthmovers (DEUCEs) and High-Mobility

Engineer Excavators (HMEEs). This is the largest upgrade to

the engineer fleet in decades!

10 Engineer April-June 2006

Posture for the Next Transformation

T.

he third line of operation is posturing for the next

transformation. We must lead our Regiment in the direction of change.

Conceptual Framework. As we examine the direction of

the next transformation, we see the Army poised to include

the Future Combat System (FCS). The FCS is a highly integrated structure of manned and unmanned air and ground

assets, bound by a distributed network acting as a unified

combat ground force in the joint environment. The intent of

the FCS organizations is to increase its capabilities within this

network-centric structure so that forces can conduct their missions within a larger area of responsibility, operate on longer

routes, and be proactive and optimized for offensive operations, all the while linked with a common operational picture

(COP).

Mobility Materiel Evolution. The assured mobility framework will be just as applicable in these organizations as today.

The imperatives and fundamentals will be the foundation for

offensive operations. The way we will operate is not that complex. It is a system of systems that feeds information into a

single picture for all to see. Our higher headquarters and BCT

assets will gather terrain data in the area of operations and

report mobility impediments which will be reflected in the COP.

Engineers will employ the intelligent mine system and other

unattended ground sensors to extend the coverage area for

updating the COP. The future Assured Mobility Vehicle (AMV)

will operate embedded in BCTs and from the force pool, providing precision detection and neutralization, all the while continuously updating the COP.

The AMV will evolve from our current suite of assured

mobility capabilities. Currently, our route clearance teams are

a system. We have provided add-on component improvements

and provided our sappers with additional add-on skills and

tools. As we transition to the Modular Engineer Force, we will

have dedicated clearance companies. We will spiral in GWOT

technology improvements and continue to provide sappers

with improved capabilities. When the Army begins to activate

FCS BCTs, we anticipate that we will have a common engineer

squad vehicle (the AMV) with standoff detection, neutralization, and marking capabilities integrated with all of the FCS

information-sharing systems, making it the Assured Mobility

System (AMS). Obviously, there are many technological
April-June 2006 Engineer 11

challenges, but we are making significant progress every day

in these areas. Our goal is to field an AMV with all its capabilities inside the heavy brigade combat team (HBCT) engineer

search section within the next few years and have it throughout our Regiment’s formations by 2015.

Modular Support to FCS. The FCS BCT (or future brigade combat team [FBCT]) will still have mobility capability requirements. These requirements include highresolution geospatial terrain data, gap crossing (wet/dry >

4 meters), neutralization of hazards on- and off-route, neutralization of explosive and nonexplosive obstacles, emplacement of countermobility obstacles, force protection/

survivability construction, and stability operations. The

modules to support these requirements will come from three

sources: division enablers, organic assets of the FCS unit,

or the force pool engineer units.

Our Modular Engineer Force organizational design well prepares us for the future and our ability to support the FBCT.

Our sapper companies, mobility augmentation companies

(MACs), clearance companies, and engineer support companies will be key to providing engineer capabilities to this future force. Our task for the next transformation (FBCTs) is to

modernize our materiel systems in these formations. We have

already discussed the AMV and AMS; we will also need to

develop a lighter assault gap crossing system—a lighter assault breaching vehicle. We will also select certain engineer

modules and battalion headquarters to have habitual relationships with these new FBCTs and thus also receive their command and control communications suites.

So, for example, if you need to create an organization to

provide high-resolution geospatial products, you can simply

reach for a topographic company module or a geospatial

planning section. Or say you want to task-organize for stability operations, you could take a clearance company module, a

couple of horizontal company modules, and a vertical company module to create an EMF to command and control this

organization for stability operations. So what you discover

is...we are already transforming to support the next transformation in support of the FCS. Other than continued technological advancements and improved survivability for our engineer equipment, we will continue to task-organize these

modules for the foreseeable future. The majority of our forcepooled modules will provide the core of capabilities needed to

support the FCS BCTs. These assets will be indispensable to

the BCT and division commanders.

Path to Success

I

 know I have covered a lot of material but...Is this great or

what?!! The next two years look bright as we move along

these three lines of operation. Each path is leading to

success for our Regiment, thanks to YOUR efforts. We will

continue to support the war and train the force based on your

lessons learned. We will continue to complete the transformation and growing the new Regiment; all the while we will be

postured for the next transformation. We are almost there!

My thanks to all of you who are fighting the war, who are

supporting the war, and who made ENFORCE a success

this year!

Carry On!
12 Engineer April-June 2006

T.

he Army Engineer Association (AEA) unveiled a new

award at ENFORCE 2006 to recognize the Engineer

spouses of our Regiment. For many years, the deFleury

medal has been used to recognize our Soldiers for their

contributions to the Regiment. Now we have the Essayons

Award that pays homage to all the great spouses across the

Engineer Regiment. The Essayons Award application will soon

be posted to the AEA Web site.

The AEA established the Essayons Award to honor

spouses who have voluntarily made significant contributions

to the morale, welfare, and spirit of engineer units and

organizations. In order to maintain the value and prestige of

the Essayons Award, we have established criteria that must be

met in order for a nomination to be approved.

- The nominee should be the spouse of an engineer

Soldier or engineer Department of Defense civilian.

- The nominee’s spouse should be a member of AEA.

- The nominee should be a spouse who has voluntarily

provided significant contributions and support to the

Engineer Corps, engineer units, engineer families, and/

or multiple communities.

- Most importantly, the spouse must possess qualities

that set the individual apart from other Engineer Corps

spouses or their peers.

- Spouses associated with Active, Reserve, or National

Guard units are eligible. Retired individuals are also

eligible.

The award will not be presented as an “end-of-tour” award

that recognizes performance/contributions made during a

single assignment. The presentation of the Essayons Award

to the recipient should be scheduled during very special

events such as formal dinners, retirements, and similar affairs.

The Story of the Essayons Award

T.

he Engineer Regiment presents the Essayons Award

to acknowledge our Spouses’ outstanding dedication,

devotion, and selfless service to the Engineer

Regiment. This award honors those who embody the “Let Us

Try” spirit and have voluntarily made significant contributions to the morale and welfare of engineer Soldiers

and families.

The Essayons Award is rich with symbolism. The Blue

Service Star is representative of Army lineage and represents

their Soldier’s service to country: A blue star (loyalty,

sincerity, justice) upon a white field (hope, purity, truth). The

red border represents valor and hardiness.

There are three links that connect the castle to the Blue

Service Bar, representing the unbreakable bond between the

Spouse, the Soldier, and the Regiment.

The medieval castle is inseparably connected with fortifications and architecture. It represents the strong home

foundation maintained by engineer Spouses.

The diamond in the center represents the foundation of

support to our Soldier. The diamond represents steadfast love.

The word “diamond” comes from the ancient Greek word

“adamas,” meaning unconquerable. The engineer Spouse’s

spirit is unconquerable and overcomes all challenges they may

encounter. Most diamonds have 58 facets, to bring out their

maximum sparkle, fire, and brilliance. Engineer Spouses are

multifaceted as well in supporting the Soldier, their family, their

unit, their community, the Corps of Engineers, and our Army.

The Essayons Award is inscribed on the back with

“ESSAYONS.” This keeps the Essayons motto near the

Spouse’s heart.

The Essayons Award is presented to the engineer Spouses

who embody this award. They represent the sacrifice,

commitment, and steadfastness of the United States Army

Corps of Engineers Regiment and the United States Army.

Lieutenant Colonel Funkhouser is the Chief of Staff at the United

States Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

The Essayons Award

By Lieutenant Colonel Anthony C. Funkhouser
April-June 2006 Engineer 13

G.

eospatial engineering is the art and science of applied

geospatial information, from raw or exploited data,

about geographic (contextual or spatial) and temporal

phenomena related to the earth, its subsurface, its bodies of

water, its atmosphere, and immediately adjacent regions of

space for military tactical operations.

 Within the military decision-making process (MDMP), the

art of geospatial engineering is the ability to understand the

commander’s intent, [mission, enemy, terrain and weather,

troops available, time available, and civil considerations]

METT-TC, and geospatial information available, in order to

evaluate and visualize the battlespace environment (Step 2 of

the [intelligence preparation of the battlefield] IPB). This is

then employed to create geospatial products and explain the

military significance of the terrain (Step 2 of the IBP) to the

commander and battle staff, enabling operational maneuver,

mission planning and rehearsal, training, and precise targeting

with the full understanding of the data, including intent of use

and limitations.

The science of geospatial engineering is the exploitation of

geospatial information by the engineer terrain team’s use of

high-end computer workstations and software to manipulate

the data to render spatially co-referenced information about

the earth, with temporal tags (metadata), arranged in a coherent

structure and format to support military operations,

measurement, mapping, visualization, modeling, spatial

reasoning, terrain evaluation, and many other applications.

Derived from the Army Geospatial Data Integrated Master

Plan (AGDIMP), 29 April 2005

Graphic produced by West Point’s Geospatial Science Program, <www.dean.usma.edu/Departments/Geo/GIS>

Compiled by Lieutenant Colonel Michael Hendricks, Major David P. Burris,

and Master Sergeant Donald Murray
14 Engineer April-June 2006

By Lieutenant Colonel Richard E. Barrowman

The Joint Geospatial-Intelligence

Activity (JGA)

T.

he Soldier stares patiently at the military personal

digital assistant (PDA) screen. Although it seems

longer, almost 30 seconds have passed since he

requested full-motion imagery of the building around the

corner. The Soldier has received information from a reliable

source that a group of men entered the building carrying

material that looked as if it could be used to produce

explosives. The Soldier wants the imagery to determine the

number of men, which direction they came from, what they

were carrying, and other details that only video can provide.

The video, in near real time, will be downloaded to him based

on his providing a global positioning system grid and time

frame. The video—from a Marine unmanned aerial vehicle—

is being processed through an Air Force Distributed Common

Ground/Surface System (DCGS). After nearly a minute and a

half, the video is streaming into his PDA, and he is formulating

a plan to attack the building with his squad.

Sound like something out of a television episode? Maybe

a futuristic experimental video game? In reality, it’s a

capability the Joint Geospatial-Intelligence Activity (JGA)

intends to facilitate for every warrior in the fight: the timely,

multidirectional collection, management, dissemination, and

display of geospatial intelligence among national and tactical

users.

JGA is a partnership between the United States Joint Forces

Command (USJFCOM), United States Strategic Command

(USSTRATCOM), and the National Geospatial-Intelligence

Agency (NGA) to bring the combatant commands (COCOMs)

and services and agencies (CSAs) together to aggregate joint

requirements and formulate solutions for capabilities that

extend and enhance geospatial support. Geospatial intelligence

is the exploitation and analysis of imagery and geospatial

information to describe, assess, and visually depict physical

features and geographically referenced activities on the Earth.

The geospatial legacy suffers from the fact that geospatial

information (maps, charts, and geodetic information) has been

functionally managed by “operations,” while imagery was

managed by “intelligence.” Today’s joint warfighter support

needs to drive these two together. A couple of challenges

exist to realizing the full capability of geospatial capabilities.

Disparate staff functions are only one. Separate service

systems developed without appropriate joint standards and

guidance are another, as well as previously unavailable

network-centric environment and adequate bandwidth.

Additionally, the traditional geospatial data delivery via media

(paper and compact disc [CD] or digital versatile disc [DVD])

through the Defense Logistics Agency cannot keep pace with

requirements; not all theater geospatial holdings are

electronically connected to national holdings; access to

imagery products requires knowledge of library and database

locations; and operators at the lowest tactical level have limited

access to secure communications. Continuing to improve the

way we train and fight jointly is now a mandate.

Seeking solutions for enhancing geospatial products, JGA

has a special focus on warfighter information needs at the

joint task force (JTF) level and below. The organization also

ensures that geospatial intelligence collected and produced

in theater can be shared effectively within theater with allies

and with operational and strategic users.

(Continued on page 16)
April-June 2006 Engineer 15

Five years ago the National Geospatial-Intelligence

Agency (NGA), in conjunction with private industry,

began developing a geospatial portable data format

(GeoPDF)—a new Adobe® Acrobat® file format. The GeoPDF

provides a more efficient way to use and print digital map

displays. NGA is preparing to create GeoPDFs for every map it

produces so Soldiers can access maps using the free Adobe

Reader® and free third-party plug-in (TerraGo TechnologiesTM

MAP2PDFTM) for the Adobe Reader. This technology is being

used to make file sizes for electronic map displays much smaller

than NGA standard map display files.

The United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center’s Topographic Engineering Center (ERDC-TEC)

is now using this technology to build Unclassified/For Official

Use Only digital map displays for regions of the world where

the Global War on Terrorism is being fought. The GeoPDF files

are very small (most range from two to ten megabytes per map)

and are usable on any personal computer with Adobe Reader

and the free plug-in software. The digital display on the

computer remains crisp and clear as the user zooms in to look

at the map in more detail—unlike Compressed ARC Digitized

Raster Graphics (CADRG). The GeoPDF maps can also be

printed on letter-size paper (not to scale) or printed to scale on

a plotter.

All of the NGA standard maps for an entire country can

now be loaded on a single digital versatile disc (DVD) using

this technology. These products can be ordered from ERDCTEC by mail or downloaded through ERDC-TEC’s public key

infrastructure (PKI) Web access, secure Internet protocol router

network (SIPRNET), or the Joint Worldwide Intelligence

Communications System (JWICS).

Map Display Technology in Battle Command

Digital map displays have been used for several decades

to support battle command systems. Standard formats

for digital map displays were developed by the Defense

Mapping Agency, now part of the NGA. Geospatial software

technology enabled Soldiers to use digital map backgrounds

which were stored on compact disc (CD) media and hard drives.

One map display format, ARC Digitized Raster Graphics

(ADRG), provided a clear view of the scanned map in computer

displays, but file sizes were so large that few maps could be

loaded on a single CD. CADRG was developed as a new file

format using compressed ADRG, with some loss in content, to

load more map background files on a single CD, thereby using

less hard drive space. CADRG files are much smaller than

ADRG, but the digital map display becomes blurry as the user

By Mr. Kenneth R. Bergman and Mr. Raymond G. Caputo

GeoPDF Map Files

All Regional Digital Maps on One DVD

Figure 1. Adobe Acrobat GeoPDF map of Washington, D.C.,

with the latitude and longitude displayed, as well as the

Military Grid Reference System (MGRS) coordinates

Figure 2. The same map, zoomed out with margin information such as scale, legend, and declination constant
16 Engineer April-June 2006

zooms in to see more detail. Some users still require the old

ADRG format because of the need for better resolution. Both

CADRG and ADRG are the primary map background file formats

that are used today in most automated battle command systems.

A few years ago, an NGA leader in St. Louis, Missouri, saw

the potential for using Adobe Acrobat to create digital map

display files that were more useful and accessible than CADRG,

with better resolution when users zoom in for a closer look.

GeoPDF technology was developed during this period. The

resulting GeoPDF file retains the geocoordinates of the map

background, as well as marginal features and legend information. GeoPDF files can be readily printed with a desktop

printer or to scale with a plotter.

There are two types of GeoPDF files: raster and vector.

Both file types provide a scalable display of the digital map

with crisp, clear delineation of roads, rivers, contour lines, and

other features. The vector GeoPDF has an added function

that enables the layers to be turned on and off as needed to

analyze a map display based on the user’s needs.

Production and Availability of GeoPDF Files

NGA uses GeoPDF technology for a variety of map

display applications, but this new format is still a

nonstandard product so it was not mass-produced.

The ERDC-TEC Operations Division has collaborated with

NGA on the development and use of this technology. ERDCTEC is presently building digital map displays in GeoPDF for

required standard NGA maps in theater. ERDC-TEC now

produces a series of DVDs that contain all required NGA maps

in various regions.

Copies of these GeoPDF products can be obtained by

contacting Ray Caputo at 703-428-6784 or <raymond.

g.caputo@erdc.usace.army.mil> or by downloading GeoPDF

files from the ERDC-TEC PKI Web site using a common access

card (CAC) at <https://tsunami.tec.army.mil/Products/

MapArchive/>. The files are also available via SIPRNET at

<www.tec.army.smil.mil/Products/MapArchive/> and JWICS

at <www.tec.army.ic.gov/Products/MapArchive/>. NGA

GeoPDF files can be obtained via SIPRNET at <www.nga.smil/

products/echart/> and via JWICS at <www.nga.ic.gov/

products/echart>.

Mr. Bergman, a member of the Topographic Engineering

Center, is assigned to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, where

he supports the TRADOC Program Integration Office for

Terrain Data. A former Marine, he is a Naval Academy

graduate and has a master’s in systems engineering from

George Mason University.

Mr. Caputo is a geographer for the United States Army

Corps of Engineers® in the Topographic Engineering

Center’s Geospatial Information and Imagery Requirements

Branch, Alexandria, Virginia. He holds a bachelor’s in

geography from New York College, Oneonta, New York.

JGA coordinates efforts across the enterprise and focuses

on procedures (concept of operations or tactics, techniques,

and procedures), data standards, architecture, requirements,

and policies necessary to obtain the capabilities to provide

integrated geospatial information to the lowest tactical level

in the near- to midterm. JGA is following the guidance the

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff provided on 1 October

2005: By changing how we employ the tools already at our

disposal, transformation will progress significantly.

Consequently, JGA is neither a program nor an acquisition.

Rather, it seeks to collaborate among all mission partners to

better connect geospatial data from the national to tactical

level. The lead on the JGA project says that they are using

existing capabilities and technologies to the extent possible.

The services have invested a lot of money in their own

architectures.

Demand for geospatial intelligence is great and becoming

exceedingly more complex. JGA efforts focus on the visualization (display), analysis (value adding), and distribution

(dissemination) of geospatial intelligence, following the lead

set by the commercial sector to provide better awareness of a

geospatial-supported common operational picture. These

capabilities enable users to organize, understand, and act upon

information gathered and created across the geospatial domain

by enhancing the correlation of information data layers in a

manipulative framework that assures the user a high degree of

geopositional accuracy and flexibility in display.

JGA efforts are based on requirements identified from

engagement with COCOMs and services, as well as information

from other governmental agencies. The partnership on paper

is between USJFCOM and NGA, but in reality, the partnership

is broader—involving all the services and COCOMs, as well

as supporting agencies like Defense Information Services

Agency.

The solution may lead to doctrine, organization, training,

materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities

(DOTMLPF) changes, or it may lead to focusing the efforts of

existing programs. JGA is collaborating with existing capability

demonstrations within the USJFCOM Joint Experimentation

Directorate (J9) and engaging in discussions about future

training, optimal architecture, and the necessary data standards

for ensuring interoperability and usability of data on different

customer sets.

It all goes back to the Soldier outside the building. He needs

current, accurate, and competent information. He shouldn’t

have to worry about source, timeliness, or compatibility of his

system. He should focus on the accomplishment of his mission

and the prevention of loss of life.

Lieutenant Colonel Barrowman is assigned to the United

States Joint Forces Command, Norfolk, Virginia, as the

geospatial information and services (GI&S) officer. He works

in the J3/44 Engineer Section.

(“Geospatial-Intelligence,” continued from page 14)
April-June 2006 Engineer 17

Acritical component of national infrastructure is an

accurate spatial reference system—a reliable network

of permanent survey marks that have established

horizontal coordinates and/or elevations that are referenced

to a defined coordinate system. These survey control stations

form the basis of a nation’s Geographic Information System

(GIS) databases, navigation systems, cadastral records,

horizontal and vertical construction surveys, and resource

management programs.

Even after the establishment of the global positioning system

(GPS), control networks continue to be an essential component

to the complicated science of positioning objects on, above,

and below the Earth’s surface. Surveys must be based on an

accurate set of reference stations in order, for example, to lay

out a bridge that successfully joins in the middle, or to position

a runway on which planes conduct precision approaches.

The 175th Engineer Company (Topographic) (Airborne

Corps) arrived in Baghdad in December 2004 to provide

geospatial engineering support—including terrain analysis,

geodetic survey, and map production—to Operation Iraqi

Freedom. While preparing for its first mission

in Iraq, the 175th Survey Section discovered

that Iraq did not have an established spatial

reference system; what data did exist was

outdated.

The 175th took the leading role in

developing a modern, GPS-based geodetic

control network—the Iraqi Geospatial

Reference System (IGRS). With technical

guidance from the United States National

Geodetic Survey (NGS), the 175th engineered

IGRS in the likeness of the National Spatial

Reference System (NSRS).

CORS Network

T.

he foundation of IGRS is a series of

GPS continuously operating reference stations (CORS), spread

geographically throughout the country. The CORS network

supports postprocessed differential GPS (DGPS) positioning

in all regions of Iraq. Given a complete CORS network, a survey

crew working to position critical infrastructure features could

conduct its survey using GPS with meter-level accuracy. The

crew could then download appropriate CORS data from other

stations and use it to correct differentially the field data to

obtain centimeter-level accuracies for the final product.

Each CORS site consists of a Trimble NetRS® dualfrequency GPS receiver with a permanently mounted antenna

that logs position and time data 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The stations are located at secure installations, and their data

transmits through the Internet to a server in Iraq. Trimble’s

GPS Net® software controls the server, which stores and

compresses the incoming data and then sends it via the Internet

to NGS for analysis and publication. The dataset also is

transferred to the public archives of the International GPS

Service (IGS), a global network of geodetic reference GPS and

Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) (a

Russian satellite positioning constellation) reference stations

Engineers Create the Iraq

Geospatial Reference System

By Colonel Mark Yenter, Lieutenant Colonel Tedd A. Wheeler, Captain Juan R. Mejia,

First Lieutenant Kenneth R. Joyce, and Mr. Michael Cline

Developing IGRS

A Soldier installs one of the CORS antennas that is part of the IGRS.

Photo by First Lieutenant Kenneth R. Joyce
18 Engineer April-June 2006

formed by the voluntary cooperation of many worldwide

agencies.

NGS calculates the positions of the Iraqi CORS by

processing data from each new station with data from a set of

“hub” stations that are part of the existing global reference

network. Geodesists produce the coordinates with Program

for the Adjustment of GPS Ephemerides (PAGES) software that

uses the method of “double differences” to remove clock

errors in the GPS satellites and the ground stations. Once

synchronized time is established, the precise locations of the

satellites along their arcs of orbit may be calculated epoch by

epoch. The positions of the Iraqi stations are then determined

through triangulation by distance to the solved locations of

the satellites.

However, GPS satellites circle the Earth’s center of mass;

therefore, their locations in space, and the resulting triangulation of points on the Earth, are determined in an

X, Y, Z Cartesian coordinate system whose origin is located at

the Earth’s center of mass. Because site coordinates are determined in the reference frame of the GPS orbits, the mathematical Earth model for satellite orbit calculation is allimportant, including the slow rate of drift of the Earth’s tectonic

plates and the features embedded on those plates, such as

CORS antennas.

The NNR-NUVEL-1A model is perhaps the best-known

model for predicting horizontal plate tectonic velocities for

locations outside the United States, usually with an accuracy

of a few millimeters per year for locations within stable plate

interiors. This model, however, does not make allowance for

deformable plate boundaries, such as the boundary between

the Eurasian Plate and the Arabian Plate upon which Iraq lies.

So the velocities of Iraqi CORS will need to be predicted

periodically.

To supplement CORS, the 175th designed a nationwide

high-accuracy reference network (HARN) of permanently

monumented survey control stations. The goal is to achieve a

station spacing of not more than 50 kilometers, which will

equal a total network of 200 to 300 stations. Each HARN station

consists of a stainless steel rod monument that is driven to

refusal with a jackhammer. Stations are positioned with DGPS

using as control the nearest active control station—either an

established HARN running simultaneous GPS data collection

or an Iraqi CORS.

All HARN positions are referenced to the International

Terrestrial Reference Frame 00 (ITRF00), which is considered

virtually identical to the World Geodetic System 1984

(WGS 84) (G1150) coordinate system.

Aside from various technical hurdles, developing the Iraqi

HARN presents a formidable logistical operation. Field teams

require constant resupply and protection in order to survive

and complete their missions while spread throughout a desert

that is extremely hostile. To supplement limited manpower, the

175th partnered with the 42d Engineer Regiment (Geographic),

British Royal Engineers.

The American and British surveyors were split into

autonomous teams that surveyed the first phase of the HARN,

which covers the southern portion of Iraq. Each crew was led

by a noncommissioned officer who was responsible for all

aspects of his team’s safety and completion of technical tasks

for the survey. The IGRS Operations Cell synchronized the

survey plans and coordinated the task force movements and

logistics support. The CORS data are available on an

interactive Web page. See <http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/

index.shtml> and <http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov>. Iraqi HARN

data were published on compact disc and distributed

throughout the coalition and to the Iraqi ministry of Water

Resources, Surveying, and Mapping Center.

Global Outlook

Beyond Iraq’s borders, many other developing nations

require help with developing modern spatial reference

systems. Through progressive outreach programs, NGS

has provided equipment and expertise in Central and South

America, the Caribbean, and Africa and Eastern Europe to

nations that are establishing CORS and HARNs. These efforts

have proven particularly effective in nations recovering from

natural disasters. War-torn countries require the same geospatial reconstruction, and military engineering units are wellequipped to operate in these regions. By using IGRS as a

model to create similar programs in nations like Afghanistan

and Somalia, the Army could effectively package what NGS

developed as a successful multination technical assistance

program into a military reconstruction effort.

Colonel Yenter is the Commander, 20th Engineer Brigade

(Combat) (Airborne Corps), and was the director of the

Multinational Corps–Iraq (MNC–I), Staff Engineer Section,

during Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2004-2006.

Lieutenant Colonel Wheeler is the Commander, 30th

Engineer Battalion (Topographic), and senior Iraqi theater

geospatial engineer during Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2004-

2006.

Captain Mejia was the Commander, 175th Engineer

Company (Topographic) (Airborne Corps), during Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2004-2006.

First Lieutenant Joyce was the Executive Officer, 175th

Engineer Company (Topographic) (Airborne Corps), and

project manager of the Iraqi Geospatial Reference System

during Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2004-2006.

Mr. Cline is a geodesist with the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration in Silver Spring, Maryland.

Note: A similar version of this article was published in the

Society of American Military Engineers publication, The

Military Engineer, October 2005, and The American Surveyor,

November 2005.
April-June 2006 Engineer 19

T.

he Big Agile Server (BAS) is a system created by the

Air Force that provides the latest and most accurate

map data and imagery to Iraq. The National GeospatialIntelligence Agency (NGA) is in the process of turning over

the server to engineer Soldiers in the Victory Corps, 320th

Engineer Company (Topographic), Terrain Platoon. The server

will soon be run primarily by engineer Soldiers instead of NGA.

BAS Components

T.

he BAS works by transmitting data, through satellites,

from the NGA headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri,

to Multinational Corps–Iraq (MNC–I) headquarters in

Baghdad. When NGA headquarters receives new map data

and imagery, it directly updates the server in Iraq. The ultimate

goal of this server is to become the fastest way possible to get

map data and imagery to Iraq.

The capacity of the BAS allows users to not only store the

most up-to-date imagery and products but also to keep a

sizeable amount of data on hand, creating a large directory of

map data and imagery to pull from. This is important because

it gives geospatial analysts the ability to track progress and

change in Iraq, and it builds a comprehensive historical

database for future operations.

BAS History in Iraq

T.

he BAS arrived in Iraq in 2005, and it has been an asset

used primarily by the NGA. This year, for the first time

since its introduction, engineer Soldiers will play a key

role in running the server. Currently, NGA is transitioning the

BAS to Soldiers in the 320th. This transition allows the terrain

platoon to provide leaders at the highest levels the most

accurate map products available to the military.

The BAS has been instrumental in the planning and

mission execution of most corps sections that frequently

request updated products. As a terrain platoon asset, the BAS

provides ground commanders with the latest imagery and data

on locations across Iraq. The data, transferred from the server

to a customer’s hard drive, is easily loaded by its users. This

technology has been growing since 2003, and to date, the

BAS has proved an invaluable asset in the planning and

execution of many missions across Iraq.

BAS Operations – Present and Future

C.

urrently, the 320th Terrain Platoon gets the majority

of its data from NGA. And by putting the BAS under

the control of the platoon, Soldiers who use the data

to make corps-level products will now have complete access

to the best data and imagery available. The BAS is quickly on

its way to becoming the fastest, most accurate, and most

effective way for NGA to get data and imagery to Soldiers in

the field. And with Soldiers running the system, it will become

an even sharper tool for covering all areas of the battlefield.

First Lieutenant Strom is the terrain platoon leader for

the 320th Engineer Company. Her previous assignments

include production platoon leader for the 320th Engineer

Company and battalion S3 for the 565th Engineer Battalion,

Hanau, Germany. Her platoon provides corps-level

topographic products and analysis and provides smaller

satellite teams across Iraq to the 2d Brigade Combat Team,

28th Infantry Division, Corps Support Command, and the

130th Engineer Brigade.

By First Lieutenant Bridget Strom

A terrain platoon Soldier works at the BAS.

Speeding Intel to Mapmakers

on the Battlefield

The BAS in Iraq
20 Engineer April-June 2006

As our Army deals with insurgencies in Iraq and

Afghanistan, it is becoming ever more apparent that

the precise application of infrastructure development

and reconstruction can markedly contribute to the overall

success of our operations. This becomes extremely important

as operations transition from military to nonmilitary centers of

gravity; at some point, the traditional military effort becomes

subordinate to more inherently nonmilitary tasks. Then it

becomes more than just winning the fight on the battlefield,

but also about winning hearts, minds, and even pocketbooks.

It is about winning the “economic firefight.”

While conducting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, our

forces are continually exposed to crumbling and dysfunctional

infrastructure that inhibit both establishing effective

democratic governance and producing the economic

revitalization necessary to ensure secure and stable environments. Inextricably linked, governance, economic

revitalization, and security impact each other and together

spiral upward or downward. As we face an enemy that exploits

any weakness in our own forces and leverages dissatisfaction

and hesitation in the civilian population, all of our tools are

needed to create effects—outcomes—along these three lines

of operations. The interrelationship of each capability—kinetic

and nonkinetic, inherently military or not—must be both

understood and exploited for maximum effect.

Considered long overdue by many, Department of Defense

Directive 3000.051

 elevated stability, security, transition, and

reconstruction (SSTR) operations and propelled what was

often regarded as secondary military roles into the mainstream

of military operations—no longer the isolated purview of civil

affairs, engineers, and military police units. Indeed, SSTR

operations are both combined arms and interagency operations

that require a degree of effects coordination that are arguably

as complex as more traditional combat operations.

Terrestrial infrastructure—roads, bridges, power, and water

resources—is in many ways the physical embodiment of a

mature and functioning society. Their development facilitates

economic revitalization and security. Coupled with good

governance and reinforcement of rule of law, a sound

infrastructure can promote trade and instill confidence in a

nation’s populace. By doing this, it can work with other more

traditional capabilities to help defeat the enemy. Infrastructure

development erodes support for the enemy by instilling a sense

of material confidence in the ability of the legitimate government

to deliver services. If the government can provide improved

roads and reliable power, then the enemy’s message that they

offer “something better” becomes measurably less credible.

Infrastructure development also presents an attractive

economic alternative to the population—a population that the

insurgency needs for support. If power systems bring light

industry and irrigation promotes greater crop yield, then the

local populace is less inclined to either support insurgent forces

or engage in illicit activity. Improved road networks extend

and promote commerce and serve as direct economic stimuli

and reduce the conditions where an insurgency can gain

recruits.

When people have a stake in their community, they are less

inclined to take action that will set them back. Carefully

executed with an eye on building local buy-in and promoting

ownership, infrastructure development serves to engender a

greater democratic community spirit.

By Colonel Christopher J. Toomey

Winning the Economic Firefight:

Translating Reconstruction Into Combat Power

Afghan workers are an integral part of all reconstruction operations.
April-June 2006 Engineer 21

With a destroyed road network, minimal reliable power,

dysfunctional water management, and a retarded internal

capacity for development and sustainment, Afghanistan,

perhaps more than Iraq, represents a country with a devastated

infrastructure. Immature to begin with, it shows the pain of

more than 25 years of near continuous conflict. While

combating an active insurgency, U.S. and coalition forces are

taking advantage of an excellent opportunity to effectively

win the economic firefight and establish protocols for

developing infrastructure as a complement to more traditional

forms of combat power.

In approaching reconstruction in Afghanistan, U.S. and

coalition forces of Combined Forces Command–Afghanistan

(CFC-A) are employing a mix of assets—to include Provincial

Reconstruction Teams, funding from the Commander’s

Emergency Response Program (CERP), and military

engineers—while following four broad principles to getting

the most out of their efforts:

 Maintain a coordinated, precision approach to selecting

projects.

 Win local consensus and ownership while planning

projects.

 Build local capacity as a key residual of project execution.

 Synchronize with kinetic and information operations

throughout.

Working with the United States Embassy, the United States

Agency for International Development (USAID), and other

United States Government agencies within the context of a

broader international effort—to include governmental donors,

as well as a multitude of others—it is imperative that CFC-A’s

efforts are coordinated in order to minimize duplication of effort

and to make sure the right area is targeted at the right time with

the right effort. Given that not all ministries within the

Afghanistan government are currently capable of providing

direction and focus to the international community and that

no one single body oversees coordinating infrastructure

development in the country, CFC-A must aggressively work

to deconflict its efforts with others. Through a series of forums

such as CFC-A’s Strategic Infrastructure Joint Planning Group,

the development of an accepted infrastructure common

operating picture (COP), to include a common infrastructure

database format, was an essential step. By maintaining this

dialogue across the international community, CFC-A can

influence the time and location of stakeholder activity.

Deliberately, CFC-A looks to directly engage in those areas

where sizeable donor activity is absent, while focusing on

high-payoff targets in contentious areas that will most benefit

from reconstruction efforts with a residual contribution to

enhancing security. For example, much of the international

donor community is focused on improving the more than 6,000

kilometers of paved, national-level roads. However, there is

only marginal activity in addressing the roads heading toward

Active mentoring of Afghan firms brings new skills, such as surveying.
22 Engineer April-June 2006

the provincial capitals and district centers. CFC-A is targeting

improving these roads while focusing on volatile areas that

need the economic benefit derived from improved roads and

simultaneously improving the access for security operations.

Ensuring local consensus and ownership dramatically

enhances the impact of the reconstruction effort and its ability

to deliver the effect. Working through the local Provincial

Reconstruction Teams that are tied into the provincial and

district leadership, CFC-A looks to engage the leadership at

all levels, determining what needs to be done and where it

needs to be done. Key stakeholders include the Community

Democratic Councils that are formed under the Government of

Afghanistan’s National Solidarity Program to provide grass

roots input to community and infrastructure development while

advancing democratic government. Local buy-in not only

ensures that the community accepts the work, but it also greatly

assists in increasing the likelihood that the community—often

through the use of local firms—actually contributes to the

execution of the particular project. Even in contentious areas,

project security is enhanced if the community believes that

they have a stake in its success and if locals are employed. By

maintaining an “Afghan face” on any project, it gains greater

overall acceptance.

Both in direct action and as a residual of the infrastructure

development, capacity building—the capability of the

government, community, and people to sustain themselves—

must be considered. This includes everything from human

capital (training and education) to corporate development to

local governmental reform. Each and every project in CFC-A is

seen as an opportunity to build capacity. This is done by

employing local Afghans and establishing construction

training programs, either on the job or as deliberate efforts.

Additionally, the use of local firms requires a good degree of

mentoring and training at the commercial level. Local companies are guided in construction estimates, scheduling, quality

control, and safety standards. Using expertise found in the

United States Army Corps of Engineers®, CFC-A is willing to

accept a degree of inefficiency in construction practices while

building this capacity. At the governmental level, CFC-A is

helping build the governmental wherewithal to sustain what’s

been built and forecast for the future.

In seeking an outcome with the enemy, effects-based

operations encourage the synchronized impact of both military

and nonmilitary capabilities in achieving the commander’s

intent. Synchronizing reconstruction efforts with both information and kinetic operations optimizes their impact in

contributing to the overall effect. The effects community within

CFC-A is developing a marketing strategy to leverage

reconstruction to promote many of the command’s key themes

and messages. In synchronizing with kinetic operations,

reconstruction timing and placement is aligned to not only

deconflict the battlespace but also to present reconstruction

efforts as an attractive alternative to those who may be the

direct or indirect targets of combat power. The use of

well-validated vehicles such as a joint effects working

group contribute markedly to delivering the necessary

synchronization.

Looking toward the future, it is clear that the line between

combat and reconstruction operations will continue to become

ever more indistinct. It is necessary that our Army continues

to improve how it conducts reconstruction operations so that

it can stay relevant to the nation’s needs. In doing this, it will

draw on the lessons of both the past and today to improve for

the future and ensure that it is ready for any test. In

Afghanistan, CFC-A is pushing to increase the significance

of reconstruction operations in order to take the campaign to

the next level and win the economic firefight.

Colonel Toomey commands the Afghanistan Engineer

District in Kabul. He commanded the 555th Combat Engineer

Group and 555th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade

(Provisional) from 2003 to 2005.

Endnote

1

Department of Defense Directive 3000.05, Military Support

for Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction (SSTR)

Operations, 28 November 2005.

Local construction techniques by local firms help

ensure community buy-in.
April-June 2006 Engineer 23

S.

ince the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the United

States has been searching for an exit strategy from Iraq.

The withdrawal of U.S. forces must be timely, but must

not be premature and allow the failure of the new Iraqi security

forces. The military transition team (MiTT) concept is a method

to meet both goals. A MiTT consists of 10 to 12 Soldiers

embedded with an Iraqi army division, brigade, or battalion.

Each team is led by a field grade officer—usually a colonel for

a division, a lieutenant colonel for a brigade, and a major for a

battalion. The remaining team members are a mix of officers

and noncommissioned officers (NCOs) from varying branches

and experiences. All MiTT members teach, mentor, and operate

with the Iraqi army unit that they are attached to. As the Iraqi

army gains combat power and logistical support, it assumes

more of a role in counterinsurgency operations.

Each team covers all warfighting functions. MiTT members

are chosen as subject matter experts in their field, to teach the

Iraqi army our techniques. These positions include a team

chief and experts in maneuver; mobility, countermobility, and

survivability; intelligence; logistics; and communications, as

well as various assistant positions. However, as the teams

began working with new Iraqi units, it became apparent that a

conventional staff would be more effective and realistic than

teaching skills from the respective branches. One team had

the following staff positions:

 A field artillery lieutenant colonel (team chief)

 A field artillery major (executive officer)

 An engineer captain (S1)

 A military intelligence major (S2)

 A military intelligence captain (assistant S2)

 An infantry major (S3)

 A field artillery captain (assistant S3)

 A quartermaster captain (S4)

 A signal corps sergeant (S6)

 A field artillery staff sergeant (noncommissioned officer in

charge [NCOIC])

Training Phases

T.

raining consisted of four main phases, after which each

team would become a MiTT, a Special Police Transition

Team (SPTT), or a Border Transition Team (BTT). A

MiTT would be embedded with the Iraqi army anywhere

throughout the country. An SPTT would be embedded with

the Iraqi special police force and would have a vital role in

transforming the newly formed Iraqi police into a capable

fighting force. A BTT would be stationed along the borders of

Iran, Jordan, and Syria. They would be pivotal in securing

Iraq’s borders against terrorists from other countries. Team

members came from all over the Army. Their command—the

Iraqi Assistance Group—is a newly formed U.S. unit.

Phase One

The first phase, a fast-paced 15-day program at Fort Carson,

Colorado, focused on learning the latest tactics, techniques,

and procedures (TTP) from Iraq. The training included close

quarters combat, room clearing procedures, improvised

explosive device (IED) identification, and convoy

procedures.

Phase Two

The MiTTs went to Kuwait for the second phase, where

they continued training while acclimating to the hot climate.

The 10-day training focused on advanced rifle marksmanship,

traffic control point and entry control point operations, convoy

operations, and the latest IED trends.

Phase Three

For the third phase, all of the teams flew to Taji, Iraq, for a

5-day cultural awareness program. They were introduced to

the Arabic language and Iraqi customs, food, beliefs, and

history. The complexity, risk, and importance of the mission

became very apparent and more understandable. (The United

States had a similar advisory program during the Vietnam War

when U.S. Soldiers coached the South Vietnamese army on

operations.) The success of this mission will be the Iraqi army’s

success, which will lead to U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Phase Four

The fourth phase was at Camp Victory in Baghdad. All

MiTTs received final briefings and prepared for departure to

their Iraqi army units. They received some guidance from

General George W. Casey Jr., the commander of all coalition

forces in Iraq. He referenced T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of

Arabia) in saying: “Do not try to do too much with your own

hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it

perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not win it

for them.” Some teams stayed close to Baghdad, while others

By Captain Andrew D. Swedberg
24 Engineer April-June 2006

traveled far north to the Mosul area. Upon arriving on location,

each team was assigned as many as three interpreters. The

interpreters, usually from Iraq, learned English from various

sources, ranging from American movies to studying at a

university. They were paramount to success in advising the

Iraqi army.

Iraqi Training

One MiTT was attached to the Iraqi 1st Brigade,

7th Division. Known as the “Defenders of

Baghdad,” the unit consists mostly of Shias who

supported Saddam Hussein’s removal from power. By far, most

Iraqis wanted Saddam gone from power; only a few of his

close supporters wanted him to stay and control the country.

Imagine living where an invading army would not be

considered an enemy, but welcomed and supported.

During the team’s stay in Fallujah, it instituted a basic

training program, a junior officer course, and a staff-focused

training course. Marching, marksmanship, teamwork, and

discipline were topics in the basic training program. The junior

officer course highlighted troop-leading procedures, the

importance of planning, and leadership. The staff course

focused on teamwork, how to conduct a meeting, the duties of

each staff section, and a general introduction to the military

decision-making process.

While many new Iraqi soldiers had no experience in the

military, many higher-ranking officers served under Saddam’s

regime for more than 20 years. In a brigade or battalion staff

section in the old Iraqi army, very little authority was given to

NCOs. Furthermore, staff sections did not hold thorough

planning sessions for any upcoming operation. Most of the

time, a brigade commander or higher would have supreme

decision-making authority, and the staff sections would have

very little input into decisions. This system is essentially the

opposite of ours where NCOs are empowered to train and

mentor Soldiers, and all staff sections have the ability to weigh

in on a command decision. This concept was introduced to

the Iraqi staff, and guidance continued throughout the year.

After training for three months, the 1st Brigade, 7th Division—

along with the MiTT—relocated to Ar Ramadi, a hotbed of

insurgency in the western Al Anbar province.

In Ar Ramadi, the Iraqi brigade was partnered with a U.S.

brigade combat team, and three subordinate Iraqi battalions

were partnered with U.S. battalions. Each Iraqi battalion also

had an attached MiTT. Each MiTT and its Iraqi unit were

under the tactical control (TACON) of a U.S. division, brigade,

or battalion. The attached MiTT was under the administrative

control (ADCON) of a higher or lower MiTT. Orders would

come through the U.S. brigade to an Iraqi unit for execution. In

time, the Iraqi army will be capable of issuing orders to its own

subordinate units without U.S. involvement.

A MiTT literally lives with the Iraqi army—often eating

Iraqi food, sleeping in close proximity to the Iraqi soldiers, and

teaching them our work ethic and problem-solving methods.

Some teams have a separate building close to the Iraqi unit

headquarters and work with the Iraqis during the day, but

have time away during the evening. Each MiTT has similar

experiences. Most Soldiers who have deployed know about

forward operating bases (FOBs). The Iraqi army also has FOBs,

usually sharing a common wall with a U.S. Army FOB. While

most U. S. forces in Iraq never enter an Iraqi FOB, a MiTT

considers it home.

Cultural Differences

A.

lthough we had learned of cultural differences between

the Arabic and American cultures, we could not

imagine these differences until we experienced them

firsthand. While most business meetings in the American

culture (and especially the U.S. Army) are quick, with few

digressions, meetings in the Iraqi army are nearly the opposite.

It has the same structure, such as in a command and staff

meeting, but the method of business is much different. The

Iraqi culture puts emphasis on personal relationships and

respect, often considering relationships over professional

qualities. Iraqis are influenced by religious, tribal, ethnic, and

political allegiances, unlike most cultures found in America.

Timeliness is also not an issue. If a meeting is scheduled for

0900, the Iraqi officers might arrive between 0855 and 0920.

When one officer enters, all the others stand and greet him,

which usually involves kisses on each cheek. This severely

disrupts the continuity of a meeting. We learned that these

acts were not intended to be disrespectful, nor were they bad,

but were simply different. Many similar customs permeate their

culture.

We soon discovered a fine line between advising the Iraqis

to change their army to our model and adapting our own

techniques to better fit their customs and formats. The

appropriate action was often an opportunity for each culture

to learn more about the other. The Iraqi soldiers and staff were

very respectful and impressed with MiTT members; simply

being an American Soldier assigned to work with them carried

a lot of weight. The two armies have never worked closely

together before; we are paving the way toward preparing the

Iraqi army to be capable of securing its country. Iraqi army and

police units now control large portions of the country, run

checkpoints, and conduct raids and searches. The Iraqi ability

and capacity to control subordinate units has progressed in

the last three years.

Iraqi Capabilities

Before the teams began helping the Iraqi army, it

conducted business as we did many years ago. The

brigade had one desktop computer, but no Internet

capability or telephone connectivity. They relied on handwritten documents sent by courier. On payday, Iraqi soldiers

lined up to receive their pay. The MiTT concept allows team

members to be a liaison between Iraqi units that are otherwise

unable to communicate. A brigade S1 advisor can assist on

(Continued on page 27)
April-June 2006 Engineer 25

By Mr. Christian DeLuca

Top: A Soldier

from the 20th

Engineer Battalion uses the

Prusik technique

to ascend a

tower.

Left: A team from

the 66th Engineer

Company finishes

a swim across

Bloodland Lake

after constructing a poncho raft.

Sappers from around the globe traveled to Fort Leonard Wood,

Missouri, to see who was the best of the best at the Engineer

Regiment’s 2d annual Best Sapper Competition, during ENFORCE

week, 2-4 May 2006. Ten 2-man teams traversed through post terrain

during two and a half days of the most strenuous training many of

these Soldiers had ever experienced.

Day One began at first light, with a modified physical fitness test

consisting of sit-ups, push-ups, pull-ups, and a 3-mile run. The teams

then spent 30 minutes packing their gear; were briefed on the

guidelines and boundaries; and set loose lugging 65-pound allpurpose, lightweight, individual, carrying equipment (ALICE) packs

to navigate to 16 checkpoints, culminating in more than 20 miles of

legwork within 24 hours.

At eight of the checkpoints, teams completed tasks before

continuing on their route. These tasks consisted of a Prusik

climb and buddy rappel, weapons assembly, a combat life-saver

(CLS) assessment and 9-line medical evacuation (MEDEVAC)

request, demolition calculations, grenade toss, military

operations on urbanized terrain (MOUT) breach, and various

weapons firing.

Day One ended for all teams with a 500-meter swim

across Bloodland Lake after constructing a poncho raft

from equipment in their packs. The last team finished

the swim around 0730 the next day. According to one

20th Engineer Battalion Soldier from Fort Hood, Texas,

after only one day of the competition, it had been a

hard experience.

By Mr. Christian DeLuca
26 Engineer April-June 2006
Two and a half hours later and two teams smaller, Day Two

began. With packs back on their backs and boots back on the

trail, the teams began another 20-mile-plus trek, stopping at

six more checkpoints to complete tasks. The chief of training

of the Sapper Leader Course stated that the lack of downtime

was intentional due to wanting to achieve more of a continuous

24-hour operation to make it more realistic.

The competition ended on Day Three with a 9-mile run.

Teams carried sandbags and water jugs during parts of the

run, adding to the strain. One Soldier from the 66th Engineer

Company, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, remarked that the event

was fun, but that it was an extremely challenging experience.

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 Mr. Christian DeLuca

A team from the 1st Engineer Battalion tapes C4 to a

piece of lumber during a demolition event.

April-June 2006 Engineer 27

payday and report discrepancies to the higher headquarters

via telephone or e-mail.

Each MiTT had two field ordering officers who bought

items for the team and, more importantly, the Iraqi unit they

were partnered with. Throughout the year, the Iraqi unit

received new laptop computers, new weapons, and up-armored

high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs).

With each new equipment shipment, it became important to

train Iraqi soldiers to use the items correctly. One big task was

to teach the Iraqi staff to use Microsoft® Word®, PowerPoint®, and Excel®. They began to use these programs in

command and staff meetings, much like the U.S. Army does.

Furthermore, weapon ranges and driver training programs were

arranged to train the troops on weapons and vehicle safety

and operation.

Conclusion

As Iraqi army units learn to successfully command and

control their subordinate units, they will be given

greater ownership of their operational environment.

This power shift is vital to the U. S. drawdown in Iraq. Much

like any deployment, there were low points and high points,

but all were memorable. Witnessing Iraqi soldiers vote in the

December 2005 Iraqi election was truly an unforgettable day.

More somber memories will remain, however, including the

effects of suicide bombers, IEDs, and insurgents.

The MiTT experience is unlike any other military

assignment. Iraqi soldiers are motivated to make a difference

in their country. As more Iraqi divisions, brigades, and

battalions stand up and take over, more U. S. forces will be

relieved of their duties in Iraq. It is a tough fight, but challenges

are overcome every day. Iraqi units throughout their entire

army are learning about the work ethic, professionalism, and

prowess of the U. S. military. Their army and police force are

growing tremendously and continue to gain greater control of

the country. Through the training the Iraqi army has received—

and will continue to receive—from the U.S. Army, Iraq will be

able to mitigate the difficult insurgency.

Captain Swedberg is the commander of Alpha Company,

169th Engineer Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He

has served two tours in Iraq, the most recent as a member of

a MiTT in Ar Ramadi. He holds a bachelor’s from the United

States Military Academy and a master’s from the University

of Missouri-Rolla in Rolla, Missouri.

(“Transition Teams,” continued from page 24)
28 Engineer April-June 2006

I

.

n early May 2006, the United States Army Engineer School

and the United States Military Academy (USMA)

cohosted the 3d annual Contingency Base Camp Workshop in St. Louis, Missouri. The workshop was held during

ENFORCE week to emphasize the importance of contingency

base camps to the engineer mission. Participants were divided

into one of three focus areas for the workshop: the Base Camp

Knowledge Management System, Initiative 18, or Infrastructure Assessment.

Base Camp Knowledge Management System

The Base Camp Knowledge Management System,

designed to be a Web-based knowledge portal for base

camp planners and managers, was developed by the

USMA using input from previous base camp workshops as a

guide for management system requirements and capabilities.

The system was developed to address the lack of a secure,

fully integrated means of sharing information and transferring

knowledge with other members of the base camp management

community. The knowledge management system for base camps

will provide an expeditious means for planners, designers,

operators, and managers of base camps to share their

knowledge. It will provide the process to develop and enforce

methods for sharing operational information and conversion

of data and information to actionable information, as well as

eliminating or reducing information stovepipes among operational elements.

Initiative 18

I

.

nitiative 18—from the Chief of Staff of the Army’s task

force on stability and reconstruction—establishes and

provides base operation capabilities to support the

operational Army in a contingency environment and city

management expertise to support the host nation. The base

camp workshop addressed the base operations support aspect

of the initiative, specifically addressing the recommended

course of action from the Initiative 18 Working Group that was

sponsored by the United States Army Corps of Engineers®

(USACE). The course of action discussed the establishment

of a proponent for contingency base camps. The Army has

303,000 Soldiers deployed to 120 different countries to support

the Global War on Terrorism. Department of Defense Directive

3000.05, Military Support for Stability, Security, Transition,

and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations, states that stability

operations are a core U.S. military mission that the Department

of Defense shall be prepared to conduct and support. Critical

in the support of SSTR operations is that deployed

contingency operations will require base camps. While

doctrine developers often think in terms of deployed forces

being at the “tip of the spear,” the fact is that the tip of the

Contingency Base Camp

Workshop

By Mr. Michael Wolford
April-June 2006 Engineer 29

spear needs to be correctly joined to the shaft. That joining

point for Soldiers currently deployed is the base camp, where

at the end of the day’s fight, they link back into the logistics

and support systems that prepare them for the next mission.

Currently, the process to address base camp issues is done

on an ad hoc basis, depending on the mission, operational

area, and scale of operations. Combatant commanders divert

their energy and resources to addressing base camp planning,

design, and functionality—which are often outside the scope

of their mission emphasis and in many cases should have

been completed before establishment of the base camp. The

present system is a sum of several parts controlled by different

organizations, including—

 Research, Development, and Engineering Command

(RDECOM) (United States Army Natick Soldier Center)

 United States Army Combined Arms Support Command

(CASCOM) (Quartermaster)

 United States Army Materiel Command (AMC) (Logistics

Civil Augmentation Program [LOGCAP])

 USACE (Forward Engineer Support Team [FEST],

Environmental Support Team [EnVST], Contingency Real

Estate Support Team [CREST])

 Engineer Command (ENCOM) (Facility Engineer

Detachment [FED]/Facility Engineer Group [FEG]/Facility

Engineer Team [FET])

Without an overarching proponent, coordinating resource

challenges can result in insufficient preplanning, design

shortcomings, operational issues, and the lack of an

established research and development program to seek

solutions proactively and quickly as operational gaps are

identified. These factors can be compounded by extended

operational requirements. Currently there isn’t a base camp

proponent. The Initiative 18 course of action recommends to

the Chief of Staff of the Army that the Engineer School be the

proponent for contingency base camps. This would include

the formation of an integrated concept development team, with

representatives from all organizations that provide support

for the individual systems that make up base camps. Workshop

participants agreed with the recommended course of action

and provided additional recommendations for participation in

an integrated capabilities development team (ICDT) to be

developed by the proponent.

Infrastructure Assessment

T.

he infrastructure assessment group discussed several

topics. Workshop participants stated that units want

a capability to go to a possible base camp site, obtain

critical information, and pass this information back to planners.

Two equipment kits were discussed in detail: the Handheld

Apparatus for Mobile Mapping and Expedited Reporting

(HAMMERTM) and the Engineering Field Planning, Reconnaissance, Surveying, and Sketching Set (ENFIRE). Both have

the capabilities to provide the necessary support to assessment teams.

HAMMER

HAMMER is a ruggedized, handheld field computer for

collecting geospatial data with high-resolution digital

instrumentation. The device is a product of a cooperative

research and development agreement between the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory and Surveylab,

Ltd. The product seamlessly integrates and synchronizes a

global positioning system, laser distance meter, digital camera,

compass, inclinometer, geographic information system (GIS),

and handheld computer. This allows users to quickly capture

a rich array of geospatial and attribute data, annotated with

images and text, such as capture and review a target position

and photo, add attribute data to the feature, review and add

photos, and view the new feature on a map. The instrument’s

database stores and shares data, and the automated GIS-based

system facilitates data analysis, interpretation, and reporting.

HAMMER will be demonstrated and field-tested this year.

ENFIRE

ENFIRE is a prototype system focused on enabling Soldiers

to conduct reconnaissance on routes, bridges, and minefields

by replacing the current surveying sketch kits with digital

reconnaissance forms that match currently used hard-copy

forms to facilitate data collection. ENFIRE supplies Soldiers

with software and hardware tools to gather reconnaissance

and reporting information, project management tools, a digital

library of field and technical manuals, construction project

building-design software, construction site terrain-modeling

tools, an inventory management package, and tools to

disseminate information to the Army Battle Command System

battlefield functional areas. ENFIRE was demonstrated at Fort

Leonard Wood, Missouri, in May 2006.

Conclusion

Overall, it was a very successful base camp workshop

with much being accomplished in the breakout

sessions. Several issues and actions were raised and

will be addressed. Results and follow-up actions will be posted

to the Base Camp Knowledge Management System Web site.

The next base camp workshop will be held during the next

ENFORCE. For information concerning the 2006 Annual

Contingency Base Camp Workshop or future workshops,

contact Mike Wolford at (573) 329-1927 or <michael.wolfford1

@us.army.mil>.

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.
32 Engineer April-June 2006

T.

he traffic pattern of civilian dump trucks delivering

gravel to the Logistics Support Area (LSA) Anaconda’s north entry control point (ECP) proved to be

a constant problem. The trucks blocked the guards’ field of

vision and posed a serious threat of vehicle-borne improvised

explosive devices (VBIEDs).

To solve this problem, the force protection team of LSA

Anaconda’s mayor cell and the 2d Battalion (Air Assault),

44th Air Defense Artillery, developed a plan to reorganize the

gravel stockpile area and reroute dump trucks by upgrading

two access roads and building bridges across two parallel

canals south of the north ECP. The canal water, used by Iraqi

farmers to irrigate their crops, would need to be blocked in

order to complete the project.

The Project

The Horizontal Platoon and 2d Platoon of Bravo

Company, 84th Engineer Battalion, were assigned the

mission with the provision that it must be completed in

two weeks in order to restore the water to the canals for the

Iraqi farmers.

The Horizontal Platoon was assigned the excavation portion

of the project—to design and upgrade the existing roads,

providing an entrance and an exit road to the stockpile area.

The 2d Platoon took charge of the construction portion of the

project—to construct the headwalls for the culverts and timber

bridges. Before the platoons could begin, the battalion

commander required a solid plan for the project and that 100

Bridging the Canals

By First Lieutenant Waukemsha Kirkpatrick
April-June 2006 Engineer 33

percent of the materials be on hand. The plan developed by

the platoons’ leadership called for three teams of Soldiers to

place culverts, the road surface, and a timber bridge at each of

the sites.

The Challenges

F.

rom the beginning of the project, the platoons faced

several challenges involving the availability of materials,

submerged project sites, emplacement of the culverts,

and construction of the bridges.

Materials

The availability of materials proved to be a challenge

throughout the project. After requesting the bill of materials,

the platoon discovered that some of the critical materials were

not available on LSA Anaconda. Once all materials were

gathered, the 2d Platoon began the construction portion.

Submerged Sites

Initially, the excavation portion of the project consisted of

site preparation and surveyor support to emplace grade stakes.

The Horizontal Platoon finished the excavation and site

preparations, and the day before construction was to begin,

the local farmers opened a valve to increase the canal’s water

flow. As a result, the project sites and the preparation work lay

submerged, setting the project back with a new requirement to

pump out the excess water.

The leadership called on local contracting support for

assistance. Once the contractors pumped out the water, the

Horizontal Platoon again excavated the sites, and the surveyors

came out to place grade stakes. At the same time, the bridge

team set up site security, dug footers, and set rebar and bolts

for concrete placement. The Horizontal Platoon also prepared

the ground by filling and compacting the earth canal. The

ground was still spongy after the site preparation, so Soldiers

tamped the ground with hand tampers until it was sufficiently

compacted.

Culvert Emplacement and Bridge Construction

To continue placing the culverts and building headwalls,

the Horizontal Platoon made a breach from the earth

canal to the concrete canal, allowing water to flow without

hindering the project (see article on page 31), and the initially

inflexible timeline became somewhat flexible. From the

beginning, the Soldiers had pushed to complete the project

within the allotted two weeks. But since Iraqi farmers

restored water to the canal before the project began, the

leadership decided to divert the water instead of blocking

it, so they no longer were challenged by the two-week time

constraint.

The culvert teams prepared the sites by tamping the ground,

squaring off the forms, and placing a rebar cage in the prepared

site. While waiting for the concrete to cure, they prepared for

the placement of steel culverts.

An M1114 HMMWV and an M917 20-ton dump truck cross one of the newly contructed bridges

across the two canals at LSA Anaconda.
headwalls and tailwalls at both sites to prepare for the road

surface, and then the 2d Platoon placed the final concrete for

the road surface and nearside approach ramps.

The 2d Platoon finalized the cosmetic work on the bridges,

which completed the construction portion. The Horizontal

Platoon compacted and graded the approaches and began

work on the final phase of the excavation portion—building

up the existing road. The Horizontal Platoon filled and

compacted the existing road and placed a gravel cap to meet

the height of the bridge at each site.

Summary

P.

lacing two culverts in an earth canal and building two

timber bridges required attention to detail and a lot of

hard work to ensure that the project was successful.

But the water flows in the earth canal once again, while dump

trucks have a new entrance and exit to the gravel stockpile

area. The Soldiers of the 84th Engineer Battalion were able to

positively impact both the Army and the Iraqi communities

without disturbing the Iraqi way of life.

First Lieutenant Kirkpatrick is a platoon leader for the

Vertical Platoon in Bravo Company, 84th Engineer Battalion.

Her previous assignments include direct support platoon

leader for Headquarters Support Company, 84th Engineer

Battalion. She is a graduate of the Officer Candidate School.

34 Engineer April-June 2006

The Horizontal Platoon loaded the prefabricated culverts

onto a trailer and hauled them out to the sites. Once the

2d Platoon placed mortar onto the concrete footers, the

Horizontal Platoon used the crane to lower the culverts into

position on top of the mortar, and Soldiers firmly packed in the

mortar for culvert stability.

The next task included building the formwork for the

headwalls and tailwalls. The culvert teams completed the

formwork for the lower lift and placed concrete for the culverts, while the bridge team cut timbers and predrilled holes

for placement on the bridge footers.

Building the formwork for the second lift took a little more

time than the first lift. To prevent the forms from separating,

causing a concrete blowout, the platoon sergeant ensured

that the culvert teams did not rush building the formwork.

They assembled four rebar cages (which required a lot of

cutting and tying wire), connected the cages to the first lift,

and built the formwork with plenty of bracing for the second

lift. Meanwhile, the bridge team placed timbers onto the bridge

footers and bolted them down. The bridge team also predrilled

holes in the timbers to be used as girders on the bridge.

After removing the formwork from the headwalls and

tailwalls, the culvert teams constructed the formwork for the

wingwalls and farside bridge approach ramps. The bridge team

placed decking and fascia onto the bridge. The Horizontal

Platoon filled and compacted between the culverts and

Corporal J. Adan Garcia 1st Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 10th Mountain Division Fort Drum, New York

Private First Class Caleb A. Lufkin 5th Engineer Battalion, 1st Engineer Brigade Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

Specialist Bryan L. Quinton 5th Engineer Battalion, 1st Engineer Brigade Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

Staff Sergeant Gavin B. Reinke 5th Engineer Battalion, 1st Engineer Brigade Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

Private First Class Joseph I. Love 84th Engineer Battalion, 8th Sustainment Command (Theater) Schofield Barracks, Hawaii

Private First Class Alva L. Gaylord Charlie Company, 110th Engineer Battalion Kansas City, Missouri

Specialist Michael L. Hermanson Alpha Company, 164th Engineer Battalion Minot, North Dakota

Sergeant Kevin D. Akins Alpha Company, 391st Engineer Battalion Asheville, North Carolina

Specialist Joshua L. Hill Alpha Company, 391st Engineer Battalion Asheville, North Carolina

Staff Sergeant Joseph R. Ray Alpha Company, 391st Engineer Battalion Asheville, North Carolina

Dedication

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

We dedicate this issue to them.
April-June 2006 Engineer 35

W.

hen the 505th Engineer Battalion deployed to Iraq

in October 2005, it was attached to the 555th

Engineer Brigade under the 101st Airborne

Division (Air Assault). The 505th’s missions were throughout

north-western Iraq, resulting in decentralized employment of

elements into a multidisciplinary task force—Task Force

Morsello (TFM). The process for requesting engineer support

did not allow for an immediate response to the needs of the

warfighter. Due to enemy action, the warfighter was unable to

wait for mission directives to reach the task force in the field.

TFM incorporated three command and control techniques that

allowed effective response to the needs of the Soldier on the

ground: task force organizational structure, a mission-oriented

approach, and freedom of action.

Organizational Structure

The executing elements were organized for specific

missions, and tasks and equipment were anticipated

for the accomplishment of these missions. TFM was

composed of horizontal and vertical elements with maintenance

and medical support. Personnel consisted of heavy equipment

operators, truck drivers, battalion medical support personnel,

and mechanics. The traditional hierarchical structure of the

Army was flattened, establishing a high degree of flexibility

and responsiveness.

Mission-Oriented Approach

I

.

n November 2005, TFM was sent to Forward Operating

Base (FOB) Summerall to construct a new entry control

point (ECP) and provide general force protection support.

The task force acted according to a mission-oriented approach

rather than a mission-directed approach to provide effective

support to the warfighter in the field. Having direct contact

with the customer, it was able to respond to the request for

engineer support with elements ready to execute within hours

of receiving the task. As new FOB mission tasks—outside the

original ECP mission directive—were executed, they were

included in daily status reports to company and battalion

commands.

Joint planning with Headquarters and Headquarters

Company (HHC), 187th Infantry Regiment, ensured that

existing project plans were modified and the customer’s

requirements were met. More importantly, TFM’s fluid response

had a direct impact on supporting warfighters on the ground

in the Bayji area. The task force succeeded in accomplishing

seven simultaneous missions and still completed the north

ECP ahead of the original schedule.

By Second Lieutenant Joseph P. Morsello

TFM places barriers around the Muhallabiyah Police

Station perimeter.
TFM’s decentralized operation methods contributed to its

ability to improvise. The task force always performed its own

reconnaissance and, through on-site inspections, determined

equipment needs and potential problems.

Conclusion

The task force organizational structure, missionoriented execution, and multiechelon freedom ofaction allowed many tasks and projects to be executed

in parallel. Task force organization allowed the custom building

of a tailor-made force that met specific mission requirements,

ensuring that the right equipment, operators, and support were

available when needed. Additionally, TFM was able to

integrate elements from the 43d Engineer Battalion, 3ACR,

and 425th Transportation Company during the Muhallabiyah

Police Station project. Acting according to the mission intent

to provide effective support to the 187th and 3ACR, rather

than specific written mission directives, allowed an immediate

response to the needs of the Soldiers on the front lines of the

counterinsurgency. Accomplishing this was a direct result of

joint planning with the customer. TFM’s joint planning and

responsiveness to the customer’s needs eliminated any fears

that directed operations would derail. The task force operated

with a considerable amount of freedom to conduct

reconnaissance and execute missions. The reconnaissance

pull methodology, in combination with conducting its own

recons, allowed detailed planning and the efficient flow of

work through the project pipeline.

Second Lieutenant Morsello is the direct support and

company maintenance platoon leader, Headquarters Support

Company, 505th Engineer Battalion, Gastonia, North

Carolina. He was previously the engineer equipment platoon

leader, Headquarters Support Company, 505th Engineer

Battalion. He holds a bachelor’s in managerial accounting

from Pace University, Pleasantville, New York, and a master’s

in liberal studies from North Carolina University, Raleigh,

North Carolina.

36 Engineer April-June 2006

Carrying this mission-oriented approach into FOB Sykes,

TFM became a highly autonomous unit because the

3d Armored Cavalry Regiment (3ACR) was very receptive to

this type of operational technique. The 3ACR regimental

engineer informed them of requested engineer assets from

units in the field and gave his intent based on the requests.

TFM then conducted a reconnaissance of the project site,

gathered the customer’s requirements, and wrote the statement

of work (SOW). The SOW and the request for engineer support

were reviewed by the regimental engineer and submitted to

the 555th through the 101st.

Modifications to the original SOW for ongoing and followon missions followed the usual process for requesting engineer

support. Under the 3ACR, the process was executed quicker.

The SOW was then written, in cooperation with the customer,

for the new requirements. Written directives were ready within

a few days, allowing planning to begin on future projects. The

usual project management administrative needs were addressed

as engineer assets were diverted for immediate-need missions

and SOW modifications. The schedule was quickly updated

and passed up the chain of command and, most importantly,

the customer understood the impacts on existing projects,

such as time delays and assets diverted for other missions.

Freedom of Action

T.

he efficient execution of TFM’s mission pipeline at both

FOB Summerall and FOB Sykes was greatly facilitated

by its freedom of action at the task force level. Task

force personnel knew the intent of their leader and customer,

allowing them freedom to overcome design and on-site work issues

as projects progressed. Work never stopped because their leader

was unavailable when questions or problems arose. Inclusion of

the senior E5s and select E4s in the reconnaissance and planning

process provided invaluable technical expertise. Select

personnel were also part of the development of the SOW and

design process, enabling task force personnel to have a

personal stake in the project’s objectives and schedule. This

allowed junior NCOs to have significant freedom of action.

They knew the project’s goal, final product, and intent.

TFM Soldiers patrol the streets

near the Biaj guard towers using

M1 Abrams tanks.
April-June 2006 Engineer 37

Adecade after civil war left thousands of unexploded

bombs scattered throughout their homeland, troops

from the newly consolidated army of Bosnia and

Herzegovina are helping coalition forces dispose of unexploded ordnance (UXO) in southern Iraq. Just last year, two

separate armies functioned in Bosnia and Herzegovina—the

Army of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the

Army of the Republic of Serbia.

Last year also saw the birth of explosive ordnance disposal

(EOD) as a career field in the Bosnian army after the troops

completed training with contractors. Despite the fact that they

are relative newcomers in the world of EOD experts, U.S.

military leaders have been impressed by the Bosnians. They

are safe, productive, and professional in the way they perform

their mission.

In Iraq, the mission of the Bosnian unit is to supplement

civilian contractors in identifying, removing, and safely

detonating UXO in an area where a weapons stockpile was

hastily destroyed by exploding it. The initial explosion

destroyed most of the weapons; however, it flung

miscellaneous bits—called kick-outs—over a 13-squarekilometer area. These kick-outs pose a threat to the local

population and coalition troops.

Bosnian Troops Assist

With UXO Removal in Iraq

By Specialist Spencer J. Case

Explosive ordnance detonation specialists

with the army forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina uncover an artillery round during

their munitions sweep.

Photo by Specialist Spencer J. Case

Photo by Specialist Spencer J. Case
38 Engineer April-June 2006

As citizens of a war-torn country, the Bosnian troops have

seen—firsthand—the devastation wrought by UXO. This

gruesome knowledge makes their mission intensely personal.

Several Bosnian children have lost their lives or their limbs

because they were playing with items such as the scattered

kick-outs. Every mine and UXO removed and destroyed is

potentially a life or a limb saved.

In March, the Bosnian EOD unit dismounted from their

vehicles to form a semicircle around the deputy commander of

the mission. They listened attentively as he gave a briefing,

running through a list of security and safety procedures in

their native language. When the briefing was over, the troops

formed a line that resembled a standard police call for trash,

scouring the ground for anything resembling a bomb. Some of

the shells were obvious, while with others, only the tip of a

cone or a bent fin protruded from the soil to warn the Bosnians

to step carefully.

The fact that the explosives had been exposed to the

elements for so long also made the Bosnians’ job more

hazardous. The molecular structure of the explosives could

have changed over time, with the exposure to sunlight,

moisture, and other conditions. As that process occurs, the

explosives can become more stable or unstable than they were

originally.

As the Bosnians comb the desert, U.S. Soldiers stand

lookout to prevent children and sheep-herding Bedouins from

entering areas that have not been cleared. This scene shows

the tremendous progress of the Bosnians in the last few years

and gives hope to Iraq following the same path to a unified

and independent country.

Once a sector was cleared, the UXO was transported by

the Bosnians to a blasting area nestled between two dirt hills

and placed on the ground beside a crater. The detonations are

spectacular, creating mushroom clouds that resemble atomic

explosions. The smell of burning phosphorous is a pungent,

biting scent that becomes pleasant over time with the realization

that there will be—at least from those explosives—no loss of

life or limb.

Specialist Case is a public affairs specialist for the 207th

Mobile Public Affairs Detachment. He is a graduate of the

Basic Public Affairs Specialist-Writer course at the Defense

Information School, Fort Meade, Maryland.

Regimental Awards

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 2005 selection boards for the Itschner and Outstanding

Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Awards, the Sturgis Medal,

and the Van Autreve Award:

Active Army

Itschner Award: Echo Company, Task Force 4-64 Armor

Brigade, 3d Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Georgia.

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Award:

First Lieutenant Patrick Sullivan, Alpha Company, 864th

Engineer Battalion, Fort Lewis, Washington.

Sturgis Medal: Sergeant First Class Roderick Jones, Bravo

Company, 864th Engineer Battalion, Fort Lewis, Washington.

Van Autreve Award: Specialist Jonathan T. Lapage, Echo

Company, 2d Battalion, 69th Armor Regiment, Fort Stewart,

Georgia.

United States Army Reserve

Itschner Award: Headquarters Support Company, 844th

Engineer Battalion, Knoxville, Tennessee.

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Award:

No nomination.

Sturgis Medal: Sergeant First Class John L. Krell,

Headquarters Support Company, 844th Engineer Battalion,

Knoxville, Tennessee.

Van Autreve Award: Specialist Mark R. Olson,

Headquarters Support Company, 844th Engineer Battalion,

Knoxville, Tennessee.

Army National Guard

Itschner Award: Alpha Company, 224th Engineer Battalion,

Burlington, Iowa.

Outstanding Engineer Platoon Leader (Grizzly) Award:

Second Lieutenant Nicholas P. Jones, Bravo Company, 224th

Engineer Battalion, Ottumwa, Iowa.

Sturgis Medal: Sergeant First Class David R. Zulaica, Alpha

Company, 224th Engineer Battalion, Burlington, Iowa.

Van Autreve Award: Specialist Brandon T. Layne, 201st

Engineer Battalion, Ashland, Kentucky.

The award recipients were recognized at ENFORCE 2006,

1-4 May 2006, at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.
April-June 2006 Engineer 39

Y.

.ou are the engineer for your deployed unit and are

tasked, for example, with rebuilding the infrastructure, power grid, road network, and water and

wastewater treatment systems for a destroyed town in Iraq or

with providing a design for a high-altitude river crossing in

Afghanistan. Or perhaps you are supporting a maneuver unit

at a training center, or deploying to assist after a natural

disaster and you need designs, cost estimates, geographic

information system (GIS)-interactive maps, or flood analyses

in a short suspense and do not have the staff on hand to

handle the request. What can you do to get the mission

accomplished?

The Engineering Infrastructure and Intelligence

Reachback Center (EI2RC), a United States Army Corps

of Engineers® (USACE) asset located in Mobile,

Alabama, has managed more than 1,000 requests from deployed

engineers since 2003. Under field-force engineering (FFE)

doctrine, USACE harnessed the expertise of 35,000 nondeployed engineers in order to support deployed engineers

around the world.

Customers who contact the EI2RC include Army, Navy,

Marine Corps, and Air Force personnel and members of the

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the

United States Department of State. The EI2RC supports the

Global War on Terrorism, civil-military deployments worldwide,

relief efforts for natural disasters (such as Hurricane Katrina),

and combatant commander (COCOM) training exercises.

So how does this “reachback concept” work? Customers

submit a request for information (RFI) to the EI2RC via

unclassified or classified Web site, e-mail, video teleconference

(VTC), or telephone. An RFI is a request for technical assistance

that requires FFE funding and approval. RFIs include—but

are not limited to—infrastructure assessment; GIS; base camp

design; entry control point (ECP) design; environmental

assessment; antiterrorism/force protection design; water and

wastewater treatment system design; electrical design and

analysis; route analysis and bridge military load classification;

bridge and dam repair; dam breach/flood analysis; intelligence

analysis; disaster relief support; and airport, port facility,

railroad, and roadway design/repair.

Upon approval of the RFI, the EI2RC gives it a tracking

number and assigns it to a Base Development Team (BDT),

laboratory, school, private sector organization, design center,

or Mandatory Center of Expertise for resolution. A BDT is a

multidisciplined team of engineers from the Baltimore, Tulsa,

Louisville, Alaska, Mobile, Little Rock, New England, Seattle,

Fort Worth, and Honolulu districts who are on call on a weekly

rotational basis. Laboratories consist primarily of the United

States Army Engineer Research and Development Center

(ERDC) and the TeleEngineering Operations Center (TEOC)

located in Vicksburg, Mississippi. An EI2RC staff member

serves as a project manager for the RFI until the customer is

satisfied with the delivered product.

Customers can submit an RFI through the EI2RC

unclassified Web site at <http://ei2rc.usace.army.mil> or

classified Web site at <http://ei2rc.usace.army.smil.mil>. If

Internet connectivity is unavailable, customers can use

nonsecure Internet protocol router network (NIPRNET)

e-mail to <CEEI2RC@usace.army.mil> or secure Internet

protocol router network (SIPRNET) e-mail to <OrgMbox

CEEI2RC@usace.army.smil.mil>. They can also submit an

RFI via unclassified or classified VTC or call us at commercial

(251) 690-2039 or DSN (312) 457-2039.

Lieutenant Colonel Miller is the operations officer for the USACE

Reachback Center. A graduate of Texas A&M University, College

Station, Texas, he is an infantry officer who served in Iraq in 2004-

2005 and was awarded the Combat Action Badge.

By Lieutenant Colonel Joseph K. Miller

Contact the EI2RC

Need Engineering Help?

Photos by United States Army Corps of Engineers
40 Engineer April-June 2006

Competitive year 2006 proved to be another stellar

performance of the Deployment Excellence Award

(DEA) Program, with great units and installations

setting the pace in deployment operations. The Army’s

operational tempo, coupled with increased awareness of the

DEA program, resulted in the largest level of participation ever.

The program saw significant gains, particularly in the

operational, supporting, and installation categories.

This year’s award ceremony was held at the Hilton

Alexandria Mark Center on 18 May 2006. Army Deputy Chief

of Staff, G4, Lieutenant General Ann E. Dunwoody presented

the awards to all of the honored units. The Army Assistant

Deputy Chief of Staff, G3, Major General Michael W. Symanski,

and the Commanding General, United States Army Transportation Center, Brigadier General Mark Scheid, assisted in

the presentation of awards.

General Benjamin S. Griffin, Commanding General, United

States Army Materiel Command, provided remarks at the

banquet and challenged units and installations to maintain

their high deployment standards. Before the ceremony and

banquet, unit representatives had the opportunity to tour the

Pentagon, the Capitol, and the National Mall.

In the DEA program, Army units compete by component

(Active Army, United States Army Reserve, and Army National

Guard) in categories of large unit (battalion and above), small

unit (company and below), and supporting unit. Installation

and operational deployment categories are Armywide. The

operational deployment category is open to all Army units

that deploy on operational missions like the Global War on

Terrorism and peacekeeping. Units can contend for either the

large-unit or small-unit award. The Army’s up-tempo and strong

major command (MACOM) involvement brought a number of

new units and installations into the competition.

The Installation Management Agency had the best

showing ever with the largest number of installations

competing. The winner for the second year running was Fort

Hood, Texas. Its outstanding support to nine overlapping

deployments, coupled with the challenges of dealing with

Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, resulted in an extremely

strong showing.

In a very close competition, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, a

newcomer to the competition, was the runner-up in the

installation category. The Fort Bragg installation team received

strong endorsements from its diverse customer base and

demonstrated its outstanding capabilities to support

scheduled and no-notice deployments.

The Military Surface Deployment and Distribution

Command swept the Active Army supporting-unit category

with the 832d Transportation Battalion, Jacksonville, Florida,

winning and the 838th Transportation Battalion, Rotterdam,

Netherlands, coming in a close second.

Eighth United States Army, Korea, a winner last year in the

operational deployment category, continued to excel with the

305th Quartermaster Company, Yongsan, Korea, winning the

Active Army small-unit category and the 728th Military Police

Battalion, Daegu, Korea, being selected as runner-up in the

Active Army large-unit category.

The United States Army Network Enterprise Technology

Command had its first winner with the 40th Signal Battalion

from Fort Huachuca, Arizona, winning the Active Army largeunit category.

The Army Reserve had a number of outstanding entries,

including Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC),

United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations

Command at Fort Bragg, which was recognized as the best

Reserve supporting unit. The command formed movement

support teams with internal assets and supported a complex

operation involving 19 different special operations units,

1,200 Soldiers, and 160 short tons of cargo. The teams

ensured that deploying Army Special Operations Forces

met deployment timelines, prepared timely and accurate

movement data, and properly used transportation assets.

The National Guard also had some standout units,

including Joint Force Headquarters, Florida National Guard,

St. Augustine, Florida. The headquarters, selected as the

National Guard’s best supporting unit, supported the

deployment of 29 units and 1,800 Soldiers in support of the

Global War on Terrorism, while simultaneously conducting

military support to civil authorities during four major hurricane

recovery operations.

The 2007 DEA competition is now open for Active Army,

United States Army Reserve, and Army National Guard units

and installations. To participate in the DEA program, a unit is

required to have executed or supported a training or

contingency deployment during the competition year. All units

and installations are encouraged to plan now to compete in

By Mr. Charles K. Ledebuhr
April-June 2006 Engineer 41

this elite competition. What’s the prize? Two representatives

from each winning and runner-up unit—in each category—

will receive an all-expenses paid, four-day trip to the

Washington, D.C., area to accept the unit’s award. The trip

includes travel, per diem, lodging, and ground transportation,

as well as time for shopping, tours of the area, and a photograph

taken with the Army Chief of Staff.

Significant dates for the 2007 competition are as follows:

 Competition period: 1 December 2005–30 November 2006.

Submit packets through command channels.

 MACOM nomination packets are due to the DEA

evaluation board: 31 January 2007.

 DEA board screens MACOM unit packets to select semifinalists: 5-16 February 2007.

 DEA teams visit selected semifinalists and conduct onsite observation of deployment practices: 1-25 March 2007.

 Army G4 selects and announces the winners via a

Headquarters, Department of the Army, message: 9 April

2007.

 DEA awards are presented at the Chief of Staff, Army

(CSA) Combined Logistics Excellence Award Ceremony/

Banquet: 17 May 2007.

The 2006 DEA winners did a number of things to stand out

in the competition. First, they selected an appropriate

category—the category that best fit the deployment event.

Units planning to compete in 2007 should consider the

deploying unit categories that historically have the fewest

number of units competing and may offer the greatest

opportunity. The 2006 winners also fully documented and

explained their deployment event. Remember that the board

only knows what you tell them, so include a complete

description of what your unit accomplished during the deployment phase. Each packet has specific requirements. Make sure

you address all of them, and support the verbiage with

pictures—they really help. The DEA program guidance and

evaluation criteria are available on the DEA Web page at <http:

//www.deploy.eustis.army.mil/Default.html>. For additional

information, contact the DEA Program Manager, Mr. Henry

Johnson, at commercial (757) 878-1833 or DSN 927-1833.

Mr. Ledebuhr is chief of the Operations and Training

Branch of the Deployment Process Modernization Office at

Fort Eustis, Virginia. Retired from the Army, his service as a

Transportation Corps officer included assignments with the

3d Armored Division, III Corps, Training With Industry, and

1st Armored Division.
42 Engineer April-June 2006

I

.

t was 0345 on 23 February 2006 when two divers from the

86th Engineer Team (Dive) (based out of Fort Eustis,

Virginia) departed in a 26-foot moving truck packed with

scuba and surface-supplied diving equipment for a crosscountry trip to Astoria, Oregon. The two reached their

destination after four days of driving and met up with seven

other divers from the 86th Engineer Team (Dive) who flew in

the day before. The team was on a mission in support of the

Mid-Atlantic Regional Maintenance Center to inspect the

hull of a United States Coast Guard vessel called the Fir, a

225-foot seagoing buoy tender.

The air temperature was cold and the water temperature

even colder, topping off around 40 degrees Fahrenheit. For

the next five days, the divers had to overcome less than optimal

diving conditions to complete the job. Work consisted of

removing, cleaning, and replacing metal grates on the vessel’s

hull (which weighed 70 to 80 pounds); inspecting the entire

hull and running gear (which consisted of the propellers, shafts,

and stave bearings) for any damage; documenting specific

areas of the hull with underwater video and photography; and

conducting a paint thickness analysis along the entire hull.

The team spent nearly 75 hours working underwater to

complete the job. The low visibility underwater increased the

difficulty level, but the cold water was the limiting factor of

each dive evolution. On average, the most a diver spent in the

water at one time was around 90 minutes.

By Sergeant Tyler Dodd and First Lieutenant Timothy Mitroka

A diver is unhatted after conducting a dive in the

cold water surrounding the Fir in Astoria, Oregon.
The scenery surrounding the bay was one of a kind, from

the snow-covered mountains to the dozens of bald eagles

flying around the area. Having the opportunity to dive in Alaska

is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for most divers, but for one

dive supervisor, it was the second trip to Alaska for a dive

mission, and he was able to take what he learned from diving in

cold water and share it with the rest of the team.

This type of work is fairly routine for Army divers. These

missions reinforced the team’s ability to work underwater

(particularly the ships husbandry aspect), but more importantly,

it reinforced the importance of working relationships with other

services and agencies—not only the Coast Guard but also the

Navy, Marines, Air Force, and any other government agency

having a need for divers, both stateside and overseas.

Sergeant Dodd is a team leader/lead diver (salvage diver)

with the United States Army Dive Company (Provisional)–

86th Engineer Team (Dive). Previous assignments include

Delta Company, 577th Engineer Battalion, Panama City

Beach, Florida (Second-Class Diver School), and he has

3 1/2 years experience as an Army diver.

First Lieutenant Mitroka is a platoon leader with the

United States Army Dive Company (Provisional)–86th

Engineer Team (Dive). Previous assignments include Delta

Company, 577th Engineer Battalion, Panama City Beach,

Florida (Basic Diving Officer Course), and he has 14 months

experience as a diving officer. He is a graduate of the United

States Military Academy.

April-June 2006 Engineer 43

By 4 March, the work was completed on the Fir. But a

similar Coast Guard vessel, the Hickory, was docked 2,700

miles away in Homer, Alaska. The Hickory was scheduled to

have the same hull inspection. This time, all nine divers spent

four days driving north through Washington, Canada, and

Alaska. Once they arrived on the jobsite, they were faced with

working in 26- to 28-degree-Fahrenheit water with small ice

sheets floating nearby.

To combat the effects of the freezing water, one of the divers

put his engineering skills to work and devised a system that

would pump hot water into their wet suits. Using a garden

hose, plumbing fittings, and aquarium tubing, the divers were

supplied with a constant flow of hot water—pumped from the

vessel’s water supply—to surround their entire body while

they worked in the cold water. This invaluable system allowed

the divers to double, even triple, the average time they had

spent underwater while in Astoria. One of the divers spent a

total of 410 minutes in the water during one working dive.

When inspecting the Hickory, the team supervisors

implemented lessons learned from the work they did on the

Fir. The divers also knew exactly what needed to be done and

how to do it more efficiently the second time around. The

knowledge gained, combined with the newly implemented

work strategies, greatly reduced the total time required to

complete the mission. It took the divers only 30 hours of

combined diving time to complete the hull inspection on the

Hickory.

Divers inspect the water around the Hickory before jumping in to conduct a hull inspection.
44 Engineer April-June 2006

After years of anti-Iraqi forces activity, the main supply

routes (MSRs) and alternate supply routes (ASRs) of

Iraq have become riddled with craters. Insurgents

have staged and detonated improvised explosive devices

(IEDs), which have created various-sized craters in the

pavement. These craters are a problem for convoys traveling

across theater because they reduce mobility and provide the

insurgency with additional places to conceal IEDs.

For this reason, theater engineers initiated the rapid pothole/

pavement repair (RPR [pronounced ripper]) mission. Soldiers

from Bravo Company and Headquarters Support Company,

84th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Heavy), were tasked with

the RPR mission and have worked hard to ensure that MSRs

and ASRs in the battalion’s area of operations are crater-free.

Known as Task Force Ripper, the RPR teams travel the

roadways of Iraq, patching damaged routes.

The 84th cannot claim all the credit for the completed work,

because various maneuver units provided security to support

these engineers. The RPR teams fill and repair the holes while

the security units direct traffic and provide protection. The

coordination of a RPR team and a security unit requires intense

and thorough planning by the leadership of both units. Despite

working in a potentially hostile environment with the threat of

insurgent activity, the two elements finished the job quickly

and safely.

Repairing a Crater

Before an IED crater is deemed repaired, several

deficiencies must be corrected. The damaged and

cracked asphalt is cut and jackhammered out from the

craters edge, creating a new surface to bond with the concrete.

If the concrete is just placed on top of old asphalt, the asphalt

Rapid Pothole/Pavement Repair

By First Lieutenant Christopher T. Dening

Soldiers prepare an

IED crater for the

placement of concrete.

Task Force Ripper
April-June 2006 Engineer 45

will expand as the temperature rises and eject the concrete

from the patch, rendering the repair useless.

During the wet season, the craters are often full of water,

which interferes with the curing of the concrete. Prior to any

placement of concrete, all water is pumped out of the crater.

After the water is removed, the crater is cleared of debris and

backfilled. The backfill is then tamped to compact the soil. The

compaction of soil increases its bearing capacity, ensuring

that the concrete patch does not sink and form a pothole under

the weight of the traffic. Lastly, concrete is placed in the hole

and troweled to match the road’s surface. This increases the

trafficability of the road and reduces wear and damage to

vehicles.

Equipment and Methods

T.

he Soldiers of the 84th have a number of tools in their

arsenal, or that are easily accessible, to facilitate the

RPR process: a 250-cubic-feet-per-minute (CFM) compressed air trailer, a pneumatic concrete saw, a pneumatic

jackhammer, a sump pump, a dump truck, a civilian concrete

truck, a magnesium trowel, hand trowels, and shovels.

The methods used by the RPR teams have adapted and

improved greatly since they first began executing missions.

To save on time and resources, the teams now bring their own

backfill. Several safety precautions have been implemented to

increase Soldiers’ safety during operations, to include various

methods to mitigate the threat of IED attacks. The teams

continue to improve tactics, techniques, and procedures to

gain proficiency at filling the many craters that litter the

country.

Summary

T.

ask Force Ripper has made it much harder for

insurgents to place buried or subgrade IEDs. The RPR

teams’ goals are to force insurgents to surface-lay

IEDs, making them easier for coalition forces to spot and disarm,

and to ensure that the crater repair will last.

First Lieutenant Dening is the platoon leader for 1st

Platoon, Bravo Company, 84th Engineer Battalion. Previous

assignments include working as a project engineer for the

Honolulu District, United States Army Corps of Engineers®.

He is a graduate of Rutgers College of Engineering with a

bachelor’s in civil engineering.

Book Reviews

Voices from the Korean War: Personal Stories of American,

Korean, and Chinese Soldiers, by Richard A. Peters and

Xiaobing Li, University Press of Kentucky: Lexington,

November 2004, 288 pages, ISBN: 0813122937, $35 (hardcover).

Most books we Americans read on the “Forgotten War”

are written from the American perspective. There are a couple

from South Korean authors, such as From Pusan to Panmunjom

by General Paik Sun Yup, but Peters and Li provide an

opportunity to see the Korean War from the North Korean

and Chinese perspectives.

This book offers firsthand accounts of the suffering of the

Chinese forces during their engagements with United States

Marines from the “Frozen Chosin” to the harbor city of

Hungnam. Voices covers the suffering of the civilians and the

Soldiers’ families, as well as the Soldiers. The book provides

insights on the Koje-Do prison riots, reported by both a guard

and an organizer within the camps. They believed that the

Americans were naïve, which made it easy for the North Korean

and Chinese to run the camps, and that many lives on both

sides were lost inside the camps due to that naiveté.

Voices from the Korean War also covers a number of

campaigns. At times, the stories you are hearing could just as

well be from an American, a South Korean, or any of the United

Nations service members. This book creates a vivid and

multidimensional portrait of the three-year-long conflict told

by those who experienced the ground war firsthand.

As Paul Harvey would say, Voices from the Korean War

tells you “the rest of the story,” a story few Americans have

heard.

○○○○○○
46 Engineer April-June 2006

Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas

Jefferson, and the Opening of the American West, by Stephen

E. Ambrose, Simon & Schuster: New York, 1997, 528 pages,

ISBN: 0684826976, $30 (hardcover).

Most Americans think they know the story of Lewis and

Clark’s expedition with their crew, which they called the “Corps

of Discovery.” Once you read Undaunted Courage, you will

really know that story, as well as the story of Meriwether Lewis.

The book gets off to a somewhat slow start, because many pages

describe the preparations and supplies obtained for the adventure.

But imagine packing for a trip where you don’t know the route,

the length of the trip, or how long it will take to complete. (In

comparison, we knew more before we sent a man to the moon.)

But once all the preparations are completed, the story begins

to move us west, to the start of the expedition in Missouri.

Ambrose makes you feel as if you are a member of the

expedition. He introduces you to William Clark and the other

members of the Corps of Discovery. You learn of the daily

drudgery of the crew as they pull the boats up the Missouri

River past many landmarks, many of which are now cities. In

addition to having no maps, they had to deal with things such

as hostile Indian tribes, constant hunger, wild animals, insect

infestation, and bitter weather. This was a true adventure into

the unknown. On the expedition, Lewis proves himself to be a

first-rate mapmaker and nature writer, with his descriptions of

the flora, fauna, and physical beauty of the American Great

Plains, Rocky Mountains, and Pacific Northwest.

This was the first real interaction of the United States with

the great Native American tribes of the plains and beyond.

Again Lewis proves himself to be a first-rate leader and a diplomat

with the Native American tribes. Most meetings were peaceful

and educational. The Corps of Discovery learned that the different

tribes were like different nations and had to be so treated.

Once you have completed this book, you hardly realize

you were reading history. It is a very exciting and well-written

piece of nonfiction.

Jarhead: A Marine’s Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other

Battles, by Anthony Swofford, Scribner: New York, March

2003, 260 pages, ISBN: 0743235355, $24 (hardcover).

This book, from the perspective of a young Marine, is written

by a young Marine combat veteran. Swofford takes you through

Boot Camp, his first assignment, the build-up for war, life on

the battlefield as a sniper, and back to civilian life. Jarhead

describes the physical and mental stresses associated with

the profession—the good times as well as the bad.

As I read Jarhead, I had a hard time believing all the crazy,

vulgar, and disturbing things that happened. I thought about

putting the book down, but couldn’t. Then it dawned on me

that a large part of this story is how young men deal with the

stresses of growing up. Then add the fact that they are

going to war and their lingering doubts from that experience.

Today, as in the past, it is during the waiting that Soldiers

are made.

This book provides a portrait of the brutality and loneliness

of today’s sophisticated, yet horrendous, battlefield. It reminds

Soldiers that they are not the first to experience the doubts,

the what-ifs, and the could-have-beens. They learn that it is

their buddies who help keep them alive on the battlefield and

off, and it is their buddies who help them get back home.

Jarhead may help Soldiers come to terms with their

experiences.

Many military members have a love/hate relationship about

their service, and that is how I feel about Jarhead.

These three book reviews are provided by Mr. Jeffrey L.

Rosemann, an instructional systems specialist with the

Officers Education Branch, Department of Training

Development, United States Army Engineer School. A retired

infantry Soldier, he also served as the 2d Infantry Division

historian during the beginning of the 50th Anniversary of

the Korean War.

○○○○○○

○○○○○○
April-June 2006 Engineer 47

During the 1940s, Greenland was barely an inhabitable

area of the Arctic and was under exploration. Today,

the United States has a fully operational air base at

Thule that was made possible by the United States Army Corps

of Engineers® (USACE), who constructed several of Thule’s

facilities, often under extreme Arctic conditions (see article in

Engineer, April-June 2005, page 15).

The United States has maintained a military presence in

Greenland for more than half a century. Thule Air Base is located

in a coastal valley in northwest Greenland, a province of

Denmark, which is located above the Arctic Circle between

northeastern Canada and Europe. The air base is home to the

United States Air Force, U.S. and Danish contractors, and

Greenlandic personnel.

The existing housing is substandard, and lodging for

visitors is limited as well. To improve the housing and lodging

conditions, USACE designed and is constructing a three-story

dormitory, which will withstand the harsh Arctic climate.

Construction, which began in March 2005, is being performed

by MT Hojgaard, a Danish firm, under the supervision of

USACE. The project will be completed sometime in the summer

of 2006—one winter season ahead of schedule and within

budget.

When completed, the dormitory will have 72 rooms for junior

and senior noncommissioned officer visitors. A number of

rooms will be divided into four-bedroom modules (with

individual bathrooms and walk-in closets) that include a shared

social space, a housekeeping area, and a laundry room. In the

center of each floor is a common area with a kitchen and

appliances. The common areas provide the occupants a place

to relax and socialize.

The dormitory project is in the center of the air base, and

the bright red and blue exterior stands out against the Arctic

snow-covered landscape. The steel superstructure stands on

concrete footings and has an insulated metal panel system

exterior and a pitched standing metal panel system roof. The

interior mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection

systems are all designed to withstand extreme subzero

temperatures, and the walls are constructed with a typical metal

stud and gypsum board assembly.

Constructing the dorm can be a challenge, considering the

severe weather conditions and limited exterior-construction

By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

A contractor inspects the installation of the dorm’s metal decking flooring system.

Photo by Sterrett Daniels, USACE, New York District
48 Engineer April-June 2006

timeline. Due to the weather,

outside construction at Thule

is limited to a 3-month time

frame—the summer and fall

months (June to midSeptember)—because the

weather during the winter

season is too severe to work

outdoors, with the extreme

temperatures ranging from

-30 to -40 degrees Fahrenheit.

The exterior must be enclosed

within this window of time.

Outside construction is

also limited by daylight cycles.

Because of Thule’s proximity

to the North Pole, it has 24

hours of sunlight from May

through August and 24 hours

of darkness from November

through February.

Once the building shell is completed, interior work can

continue uninterrupted during the winter months. The

construction team worked 12-hour days during the summer

months and worked inside throughout the long winter months,

which contributed to the project being ahead of schedule.

Also, it is during the summer months that building supplies

are received. Greenland is locked in by ice 9 months out of the

year. During the summer months—with temperatures about

40 degrees Fahrenheit—the island’s frozen shipping lanes can

be broken up to allow supply ships in.

Because of the limited construction time, most of the

building materials are prefabricated before being shipped in,

which helps the workers to rapidly perform the construction.

Some of the materials that were prefabricated for the dormitory

include the concrete foundations, the structural steel, and the

insulated metal panel systems for the walls and roof.

One of the most significant differences in constructing

in the Arctic region is with the unique foundation of the

buildings. The land is primarily composed of permafrost—

permanently frozen ground below the earth’s surface

ranging from 6 feet in some areas to 1,600 feet in others.

Because of this terrain, building foundations need to be

elevated. Buildings must sit on concrete supports, allowing

air corridors to separate the building from the ground. One

meter of air clearance is required between the ground and

the bottom of the building. This prevents heat that is generated

from the building from melting the permafrost and causing the

building to sink.

Engineers who are working on projects with limited

construction time due to the elements should consider—

 Minimizing construction delays by resolving contractor

requests for information as soon as possible by thoroughly

reviewing contract plans and specifications prior to

construction.

 Resolving contractor issues promptly by being flexible and

available.

For additional information about Thule Air Base, visit its

Web site at <www.thule.af.mil>. For information on the USACE

military construction program, contact the author via e-mail at

<joanne.castagna@usace.army.mil>.

Dr. JoAnne Castagna is a technical writer with the USACE

Thule Air Base, Greenland, is the New York District.

northernmost U.S. military installation.

The dorm is closed in from the severe Arctic weather, 1 October 2005.

Photo by Sterrett Daniels, USACE, New York District
April-June 2006 Engineer 49

Emory Thomas writes of the Mexican War that “for the

first time in American history, United States armies

marched on foreign soil and fought battles in an alien

land. Maps were few and often unreliable, and Mexican guides

for obvious reasons were even fewer and even less reliable.

What... commanders required of the engineers was

reconnaissance—accurate information about roads, rivers,

terrain, and the enemy. Consequently, engineer officers very

quickly made themselves indispensable and found themselves

not only recommending routes and evaluating enemy

positions but also offering informed advice about strategy

and tactics.”1 British Major General Sir Frederick Maurice

echoes that “at that time picked officers of the Engineers’

Corps, itself a corps d’elite, performed many of the functions

which today are assigned to the General Staff. They made

reconnaissances, undertook the selection of positions, and

prepared plans and orders for their general.”2

One of these noble engineers was Captain Robert E. Lee.

Lee’s contributions to the American war effort in Mexico were

phenomenal. The American commander General Winfield Scott

described Lee as “the very best soldier I ever saw in the field”

and suggested that in the event of war, the government should

insure Lee’s life for $5 million a year.3 But if Lee’s contribution

to the war was great, the war contributed to Lee as well. Douglas

Southall Freeman concluded the following with regard to the

Mexican War’s impact on Lee: “The relation of careful

reconnaissance to sound strategy was impressed on Lee by

every one of the battles he saw in Mexico... . Lee had shown

special aptitude for this work, and he left Mexico convinced

for all time that when battle is imminent, a thorough study of

the ground is the first duty of the commanding officer.

Reconnaissance became second nature to him.”4 This lesson

is still true today.

Cerro Gordo

One of the most famous of Lee’s Mexican War

reconnaissance exploits was at Cerro Gordo, the

name of both a 1,000-foot round hill and the town

that lay behind it. Seven miles to the east was another town

named Plan del Rio. Both are on the left or north bank of the

Rio del Plan, a river that runs east-west in a straight line. The

National Road joins the two towns but does not follow the

banks of the river. Instead, it meanders off to the northeast

immediately after leaving Plan del Rio and only later does it

return and run along the river before reaching Cerro Gordo.

Along that stretch where there was considerable space

between the National Road and the river bluffs, Mexican

commander Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna had positioned three

artillery batteries on prominent cliffs to command the National

Road approach. Santa Anna’s main defensive position was on

the hill of Cerro Gordo, a couple of miles behind these artillery

batteries. Americans approaching Santa Anna along the

National Road would be exposed to deadly fires.

The defense however had one weakness. To Santa Anna’s

left or north flank there was an extensive tract of wilderness,

the vegetation being so thick that Santa Anna had no

reasonable observation in that direction. His flank was thus

vulnerable, but he was willing to accept this risk because he

considered the tangled woods impassable. Santa Anna’s

subordinates did not share this confidence, but in spite of

their pleas to defend the flank, Santa Anna sent only an

observation post.

General Scott wanted to avoid a costly frontal attack down

the National Road. He had the benefit of earlier reconnaissance

Robert E. Lee and the Importance

of Engineer Reconnaissance

By Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Dougherty (Retired)

Robert E. Lee as a captain in the Corps of Engineers

Past In Review
50 Engineer April-June 2006

of the area along the National Road and of the Mexican artillery

positions between the road and the river that had been

performed by Lieutenants Joe Johnston, P. G. T. Beauregard,

and Zealous Tower. What he needed now was information

about the potential route around Santa Anna’s left flank. Thus

he dispatched a second reconnaissance mission led by Major

John Smith, chief engineer, and Captain Robert E. Lee.5

Lee summarized the problem, writing that “the right of the

Mexican line rested on the river at a perpendicular rock,

unscalable by man or beast, and their left on impassable ravines;

the main road was defended by field works containing thirtyfive cannon; in their rear was the mountain of Cerro Gordo,

surrounded by entrenchments in which were cannon and

crowned by a tower overlooking all—it was around this army

that it was intended to lead our troops.”6 Slowly Lee worked

his way up the ravines north of the river. The terrain was

difficult, but Lee thought it would not be impossible to

construct a crude road over it.

At one point Lee stopped at a spring to which a path led

from the south. From the evidence of much traffic, Lee

concluded that he was at the rear of the Mexican left flank.

Before long, he heard Spanish voices and saw a group of

Mexican soldiers coming forward toward the spring. With just

an instant to react, Lee dropped down behind a large brushcovered log close to the water. More and more Mexicans came

and went, some sitting on the very log behind which Lee hid.

Lee remained in this precarious position the remainder of the

day. Not until darkness came did the last Mexican leave and

Lee was able to steal away.7

Upon returning to American lines, Lee compared notes with

Major Smith who, on his own reconnaissance, had come to

similar conclusions as Lee. While both recognized the possibility, they were not completely sure whether the Army could

maneuver around the Mexican left. Scott directed them to

continue their reconnaissance the next day and detailed to

Lee a work party to cut a trail. By the end of that day, Lee and

his crew had prepared a passable new trail up the ravine.8

Not only was Lee responsible for finding the route and

building the road, but Scott also entrusted him with serving as

guide for Brigadier General David Twiggs’ division in the

conduct of the attack. Freeman refers to this latter mission as

“two days of the heaviest responsibility [Lee] had ever

known.” Lee led Twiggs’ men up the ravines that passed

around Santa Anna’s left, emplaced an artillery battery, and

guided a brigade around the northern flank of Cerro Gordo

with the intention of cutting off the enemy retreat.9

Lee performed all these tasks with distinction. Scott wrote

that Lee was “indefatigable during these operations, in

reconnaissance as daring as laborious, and of the utmost

value.” Lee was brevetted to major “for gallant and meritorious

conduct in the Battle of Cerro Gordo.” Freeman summarizes

that “No other officer of the army received such high praise;

none gained so much in prestige by the action.”10

Impact on Lee

T.

hus, as an engineer, Lee developed the genius for

intelligence, reconnaissance, understanding the

terrain, and turning the enemy that marked his

generalship as commander of the Army of Northern Virginia

during the Civil War. Emory Thomas notes that it was in Mexico

that Lee learned to “act upon accurate reconnaissance,”11 and

Freeman notes that it was there that Lee “had disclosed a

Battle of Cerro

Gordo during the

Mexican-American

War, painting by

Carl Nebel
April-June 2006 Engineer 51

special aptitude for reconnaissance.”12 These lessons were

borne out in the Civil War. It was there that Freeman concludes

Lee’s “offensive strategy rested upon thorough study of the

terrain.”13 Whether in Mexico or in Virginia, Burke Davis

observes that “Lee, somehow, always found a route to the

vulnerable flank of the enemy.”14 It was a skill he had learned

as an engineer.

Applicability Today

Captain Matt Pasvogel documents this applicability in

his article in the April 2000 Engineer entitled “Route

Reconnaissance: A Lost Art.” In it, Captain Pasvogel

notes that in support of Allied operations in Kosovo, his

“company eventually reconnoitered more than 500 kilometers

of roads and several tunnels and ferry sites and classified

more than 90 bridges in Albania. Because many of today’s

military missions initially occur in countries with

underdeveloped lines of communication, engineers must be

well-trained in the vital mission of route recon.”15 He also

records that “while performing initial route-reconnaissance

missions, we realized they were very different from the heavily

rehearsed and trained engineer obstacle-reconnaissance

missions.”16

Captain Lee may have entertained similar musings while

hiding behind a log by a spring outside of Cerro Gordo.

Pasvogel concludes that the Army’s existing doctrine on route

reconnaissance is sound, but more training emphasis on this

task is required.17

As Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, during the

operations in Kosovo, General Wesley Clark would agree with

Captain Pasvogel’s assessment. In studying the various

options for ground attacks, General Clark was drawn to

avenues of approach through northeast Albania. Such an

avenue would bypass the Serb’s main defenses,18 just as Scott

had sought to do in Mexico. Clark assessed the situation as

“tough terrain, yes; impossible, no.”19 Again, it was the same

situation that Scott had faced. Like Scott, Clark relied on further

reconnaissance to develop the situation. As planning

continued, Clark learned that there were bypasses.20 He even

references “the brilliant work by a British engineer who had

planned the full use of the river and lake system to transport

heavy equipment into northeast Albania.”21 Bypasses were

possible. Clark was confident the mission could be done,

writing that “we had looked at roads, calculated repair

requirements.... We had made the on-the-ground reconnaissance and double-checked it.”22

As had been the case in Mexico, few details were known of

the terrain in Albania and Kosovo prior to the crisis. These

details were provided to a large extent by engineer reconnaissance. It was this reconnaissance that allowed General

Scott to turn Santa Anna at Cerro Gordo. It also gave General

Clark the confidence to push for a ground attack option in

Kosovo. Without a doubt, engineer reconnaissance is an

indispensable combat multiplier.

Lieutenant Colonel Dougherty (Retired), who now teaches

in the Department of History, University of Southern

Mississippi, was formerly a Professor of Military Science

there. Other assignments include Commander, 2d Battalion

(Training Support) (Infantry), 393d Regiment, Fort Chaffee,

Arkansas. He is a graduate of the United States Military

Academy and the author of The Peninsula Campaign of 1862:

A Military Analysis (see review on page 52).
52 Engineer April-June 2006

Endnotes

1

Emory Thomas, Robert E. Lee, W. W. Norton, New York, 1997,

p. 115.

2

Frederick Maurice, Robert E. Lee: The Soldier, Bonanza Books,

New York, 1925, p. 25.

3

Thomas, p. 140.

4

Douglas Southall Freeman, R. E. Lee, Volume 1, Charles Scribners’

Sons, New York, 1934, pp. 296-297.

5

John S. D. Eisenhower, Agent of Destiny: The Life and Times of

General Winfield Scott, The Free Press, New York, 1970, pp. 251-

252.

6

Freeman, p. 239.

7

Ibid., pp. 239-241.

8

Ibid., p. 241.

9

Ibid., pp. 242-244.

10Ibid., pp. 247-248.

11Thomas, p. 140.

12Freeman, pp. 246-247.

13Stuart Smith, Douglas Southall Freeman on Leadership, White

Mane Publishing, Shippensburg, 1993, p. 168.

14Burke Davis, Gray Fox, Rinehart, New York,1956, p. 40.

15Matt Pasvogel, “Route Reconnaissance: A Lost Art,” Engineer,

April 2000, p. 14.

16Ibid.

17Ibid., p. 16.

18Wesley Clark, Waging Modern War, Public Affairs, New York,

2001, pp. 308-309.

19Ibid., p. 281.

20Ibid., p. 302.

21Ibid., p. 350.

22Ibid., p. 311.

Works Cited

Clark, Wesley, Waging Modern War, Public Affairs, New York,

2001.

Davis, Burke, Gray Fox, Rinehart, New York, 1956.

Eisenhower, John S. D., Agent of Destiny: The Life and Times of

General Winfield Scott, The Free Press, New York, 1997.

Eisenhower, John S. D., So Far From God: The U. S. War with

Mexico, 1846-1848, Random House, New York, 1989.

Freeman, Douglas Southall, R. E. Lee, Volume 1, Charles Scribners’

Sons, New York, 1934.

Maurice, Frederick, Robert E. Lee: The Soldier, Bonanza Books,

New York, 1925.

Smith, Stuart, Douglas Southall Freeman on Leadership, White

Mane Publishing, Shippensburg, 1993.

Thomas, Emory, Robert E. Lee, W. W. Norton, New York, 1997.

The Peninsula Campaign of 1862: A Military Analysis,

by Kevin Dougherty with J. Michael Moore. University Press

of Mississippi, July 2005, illustrated, index, bibliography,

appendixes, 192 pages, ISBN 1-57806-752-9, HIS027060,

HIS036050, $45 (hardcover).

A military history of McClellan’s ambitious drive on

Richmond and the genius and fortune by which Lee foiled it

inspired many history books. No previous work, however,

analyzes Union General George B. McClellan’s massive

assault toward Richmond in the context of current and

enduring military doctrine. The Peninsula Campaign of 1862:

A Military Analysis fills this void. Background history is

provided for continuity, but the heart of this book is military

analysis and the astonishing extent to which the personality

traits of generals often overwhelm even the best efforts of

their armies.

The Peninsula Campaign lends itself to such a study.

Lessons for those studying the art of war are many. On water,

the first ironclads forever changed naval warfare. At the

strategic level, McClellan’s inability to grasp Lincoln’s grand

objective becomes evident. At the operational level, Robert

E. Lee’s difficulty in synchronizing his attacks deepens the

mystique of how he achieved so much with so little. At the

tactical level, the Confederate use of terrain to trade space

for time allows for a classic study in tactics.

Moreover, the campaign is full of lessons about the

personal dimension of war. McClellan’s overcaution, Lee’s

audacity, and Jackson’s personal exhaustion all provide

valuable insights for today’s commanders and for Civil War

enthusiasts still debating this tremendous struggle. Historic

photos and detailed battle maps make this study an invaluable

resource for those touring the many battlegrounds from

Young’s Mill and Yorktown through Fair Oaks to the final

throes of the Seven Days’ Battles.

Kevin Dougherty, a retired infantry officer, teaches in

the Department of History at the University of Southern

Mississippi. He has also authored The Coastal War in North

and South Carolina. J. Michael Moore is the registrar of Lee

Hall Mansion, Newport News, Virginia.

Book Review

○○○○○○
Fiscal Year 2006 Class Schedule

April-June 2006 Engineer 53

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

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

ENGINEER UPDATE

Fiscal Year 2007 Class Schedule

Class Number Report Date Graduation Date

13 Aug 06

10 Sep 06

1 Sep 06

29 Sep 06

Center for Engineer Lessons Learned (CELL). The

United States Army Engineer School CELL needs your

help. To keep training, doctrine, and combat developments

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

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

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

Soldier observations/submissions to the Engineer School;

and requests for information (RFIs).

This information is used to conduct doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education,

personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) gap analyses and

to determine solutions. These solutions are distributed to

the Engineer Regiment via new doctrine and training

products, Engineer (The Professional Bulletin of Army

Engineers) and other publications, and Web sites and by

answering RFIs. (The Engineer School RFI Web site

provides the Engineer Regiment a reachback capability.)

You can help by forwarding any of these materials from

your unit’s deployment to the CELL. Unclassified

information can be sent to <Doctrine.Engineer

@wood.army.mil> or <reggie.snodgrass@us.army.mil>.

Classified information can be sent by secure Internet

protocol, routed (SIPR) e-mail to <snodgrassrg

@monroe.army.smil.mil>. For more information, call

(573) 563-4117.

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

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

Visual Archive. The History Office at the Engineer

School is developing a visual archive. It currently has more

than 18,000 photographs, largely from World War II and

Korea. Units that would like to contribute photographs

(copies) or other visual material should contact Dr. Larry

Roberts, Historian, United States Army Engineer School,

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473. Where possible,

caption information should accompany the images. If you

have questions, call Dr. Roberts at (573) 563-6109.

Class Number Report Date Graduation Date

CLS 06

CLS 07

CLS 01

CLS 02

CLS 03

CLS 04

CLS 05

CLS 06

CLS 07

15 Oct 06

The point of contact for this course is the Directorate

of Training and Leader Development (DOTLD) Sergeant

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

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

army.mil/dotld/>.

Urban Mobility Breaching Course (UMBC). The

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

North Carolina, by the United States Marine Corps, with

assistance from three United States Army engineers. Two

weeks of the course are consolidated training, and the

remaining week is Army-unique. The maximum Army

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

course can be reserved through the Army Training

Requirements and Resources System (ATRRS).

The UMBC provides advanced information on urban

breaching operations. The course consists of in-depth

explosive theory; detailed planning that combines

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

including explosive, manual, and ballistic breaching

techniques for urban operations. The UMBC teaches the

use of Current Force equipment that supports mobility

operations in support of the maneuver force.

Students must meet requirements listed in Department

of the Army Pamphlet 611-21, Military Occupational

Classification and Structure, and Army Regulation 600-9,

The Army Weight Control Program; be a combat engineer

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

E-7 and a graduate of the combat engineer Basic

Noncommissioned Officer Course (BNCOC); have no

pending Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) actions;

and have no limiting profiles.

26 Nov 06

21 Jan 07

25 Feb 07

15 Apr 07

3 Jun 07

5 Aug 07

3 Nov 06

15 Dec 06

9 Feb 07

16 Mar 07

4 May 07

22 Jun 07

24 Aug 07