COMMANDANT

COL Robert A. Tipton

563-6192

<robert.tipton@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT

Mr. James Rowan

563-4363

<james.rowan@us.army.mil>

REGIMENTAL CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER

CW5 Robert K. Lamphear

563-4088

<robert.lamphear@us.army.mil>

REGIMENTAL COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR

CSM Robert J. Wells

563-8060

<bobby.wells@us.army.mil>

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–USAR

COL Jose Cepeda 

563-8045

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

DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT–ARNG

LTC Steven K. Knutzen 

563-8046

<steven.knutzen@us.army.mil>

CHIEF OF STAFF

LTC Scott C. Johnson

563-7116

<scott.johnson@us.army.mil>

COMMANDER, 1st ENGINEER BRIGADE

COL Tommy R. Mize 

596-0224, DSN 581-0224

<tommy.mize@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF TRAINING AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT

COL Jerry C. Meyer

563-4093

<jerry.meyer@us.army.mil>

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION

Mr. Robert F. Danner

329-1942

<robert.f.danner@us.army.mil>

COUNTER EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS CENTER

COL David Theisen 

563-8142

<david-theisen@us.army.mil>

HUMANITARIAN DEMINING TRAINING CENTER

Mr. Rodney A. Robideau

596-3870

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

ENGINEER DOCTRINE, MANSCEN DOT

Mr. Douglas Merrill

563-0003

<douglas.merrill@us.army.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT ORGANIZATION

LTC Stephen A. Danner

563-6282

<stephen.danner@us.army.mil>

MANEUVER SUPPORT MATERIEL

LTC Steven T. Wall

563-5055

<steven.wall@us.army.mil>

Engineer (ISSN 0046-1989) is prepared tri-annually by 

the United States Army Engineer School and the MANSCEN Directorate of Training, 464 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 

2661, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473-8926. Periodicals postage is paid at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and 

additional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to MANSCEN 

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

464 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 2661, Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri 65473-8926.

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

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

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

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

mil/engrmag/default.htm>.

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

informed of current and emerging developments within 

their areas of expertise for the purpose of enhancing their 

professional development. Views expressed are those of 

the authors and not those of the Department of Defense 

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

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

items constitutes neither affirmation of their accuracy nor 

product endorsement. Engineer reserves the right to edit 

material submitted for publication.

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

OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION is targeted to all engineer 

and engineer-related units.

PERSONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS are available for $19.00 

($26.60 foreign) per year by contacting the Superintendent 

of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

15250-7954.

ADDRESS CHANGES for personal subscriptions 

should be sent to the Superintendent of Documents, 

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

D.C. 20402.

By Order of the Secretary of the Army:

GEORGE W. CASEY, JR.

General, United States Army

Chief of Staff

Official:

0828901

JOYCE E. MORROW

Administrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army

United States Army Engineer School

573-563-8080 / DSN 676-8080
E R

DEPARTMENTS

02 Clear the Way

By Brigadier General (P) 

Gregg F. Martin

 3 Clear the Way

By Commandant

Colonel Robert A. Tipton

04 Lead the Way

By Command Sergeant Major 

Robert J. Wells

33 Letter to the Editor

33 Dedication

68 Past in Review – “Topogs:	

	 Topographical Engineers in

	 Peace and War”

By Mr. Gustav Person

77 Engineer Update

77 News and Notes

Front Cover and Back Cover: 

Designed by Jennifer Morgan

MANAGING EDITOR

Shirley Bridges

EDITOR

Rick Brunk

CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

Cheryl Green

GRAPHIC DESIGNER 

Jennifer Morgan

COMMANDANT

Colonel Robert A. Tipton

FEATURES

05 Building Strong Starts With Getting the Right People

By Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp

06 Early Engagement Strategy at Norwich University 

By Lieutenant Richard A. Pratt and Brigadier General(P) Gregg F. Martin 

08 Strengthening the Regiment: Mentorship, Leader Development, and the Engineer 

Community 

 By Lieutenant Colonel Diana M. Holland

12 USACE Uses New Techniques to Attract Graduates

 By Mr. Scott Nielsen

13 Engineers Excel at 2008 Branch Orientation Days

By Captain William E. Mohr

15 SAME Construction and Engineering Camps: Building Great Engineers by 

Mentoring Students

 By Mr. Ron Brown

16 Professional Registration—Advice for Aspiring Army Engineers

 By Major Richard J. Gash

20 Building Great Engineers: How SAME Is Your Closest Ally

By Mr. Ben Matthews

21 Knowledge Management in Action

 By Mr. Douglas D. Fowler

23 Mental Training for Combat Engineers: From the Classroom to the Battlefield

 By Mr. Brian C. Hite

25 Contracting Officer’s Representative Training at the Engineer School 

 By Lieutenant Colonel Steven T. Wall and Major John N. Carey

26 Engineer Opportunities on the Southwest Border

 By Major Allison Day

28 Operation Hydra: Airborne Engineers in Action

 By First Lieutenant Matthew Z. Freund

30 Before Equipment and Training, There Must Be Engineering

 By Major Thomas D. Heinold

34 2008 Army Deployment Excellence Awards

 By Mr. Henry H. Johnson

36 Power Surge: 249th Engineer Battalion Conducts Electrical Inspections and Repairs

 By Lieutenant Colonel Paul B. Olsen

38 Engineer Doctrine Update

 By Lieutenant Colonel Hank Thomsen

41 Engineer Training at NTC

 By Major Larry J. Lyle, Jr.

44 Focus on the Future: Institutionalizing Sustainability Into the Army

 By Colonel Timothy E. Hill

48 Wildfire Maps Aid FEMA Mission

 By Dr. JoAnne Castagna

Volume 38 PB 5-08-3/4 Headquarters, Department of the Army July-December 2008

NGINEE

UNITED STATES ARMY

ENGINEER SCHOOL

The Professional Bulletin of Army Engineers

MANSCEN 

DIRECTORATE OF TRAINING 

PUBLICATIONS BRANCH

July-December 2008 Engineer 1

50 The Battle of Shiloh

 By Captain John T. Shelton

54 Pioneering Nondoctrinal Bridging Operations:

The “Roller Skate” Repair

By First Lieutenant Nicholas A. Soroka

56 Iron Claw Academy: Developing Route Clearance 

Capabilities in the Iraqi National Police 

By Captain Scott F. Swilley0

59 A New Generation of Expeditionary Earth-Filled 

Protective Barriers

 By Warrant Officer 2 Matt A. Graves

622 18th Engineer Brigade’s Mission Rehearsal Exercise at 

JMRC

 By Lieutenant Colonel Hank Thomsen

65 A Quick Introduction to NATO Engineering

By Lieutenant Colonel David L. Knellinger

74 Operation Sand Castle 2008: Taking It to the Next Level 

and Beyond

 By Major Jon A. Brierton
2 Engineer July-December 2008

-

By Brigadier General (P) Gregg F. Martin

Commandant, United States Army Engineer School

Clear The Way 

Teammates: On 8 October 2008— 

a gorgeous Fall day in the Ozarks—

the MANSCEN CG, MG McCoy, 

passed the Engineer Commandant Colors 

from me to COL Bob Tipton. It has been 

the greatest of honors to have served as 

your Commandant for the past year. This 

has been an awesome endeavor for Maggie 

and me, and we have loved every minute 

of serving with and for you all!

While fighting in two theaters and 

conducting full spectrum operations 

worldwide, our Regiment has been magnificent! From tip-of-the-spear Sapper and 

counter-IED missions, across the total 

range of our many engineer roles and functions throughout the 

depth and space of the operational environment, to nationallevel reconstruction operations, our Regiment provides an 

absolutely critical capability for our Army, Joint Force and 

Nation. Simultaneously, we have TRAINED, educated and 

helped develop more than 20,000 new engineer Soldiers and 

leaders; SUPPORTED our deploying and deployed forces; 

continued TRANSFORMING ourselves into the Modular 

Engineer Force; CARED for each other and our Families; and 

ENGAGED key stakeholders—all for the good of our Army!

We are One Engineer Regimental Team of Teams, 

comprised of more than 70,000 uniformed engineer Soldiers 

and more than 30,000 DA Civilians, as well as academic 

colleagues, alumni, contractors, Families, and more... We 

are in great demand around the world—everyone wants 

more engineers and the capabilities we provide so well. Yet, 

in our resource-constrained environment, it is unlikely that 

we will see any significant increase in resources, if any at 

all, in the foreseeable future...Thus, it is encumbent upon us 

to innovate and adapt across all the DOTMLPF domains—

developing new ways to team with each other, as well as 

our joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational 

(JIIM) partners—leveraging each others’ strengths and 

capabilities in order to mitigate and overcome our gaps and 

shortfalls. A great example of this is the development of our 

Field Force Engineering concept over the past decade and 

the unprecedented level of collaboration between the troop 

and USACE elements of the Regiment. Another example 

is our Joint Engineer Operations Course (JEOC) and the 

unprecedented level of Joint Engineering we have seen 

develop over the past several years. There 

is much untapped potential that we must 

explore and develop.

The recently completed Collection 

and Analysis Team (CAAT) project in 

Iraq will be a great help in validating our 

requirements. Thanks to COLs Tipton and 

DeLuca and teams for orchestrating and 

executing this critical mission so well. The 

officially sanctioned CALL report should 

be published soon.

On the Building Great Engineers (BGE) 

front, we’ve had an awesome run since 

the last Engineer Bulletin. We’ve executed 

significant Stratcomms/Engagement 

events at USMA, both the Engineer Expo (to encourage 

underclassmen to major in engineering) and the Combat 

Leader Seminar and Branch Day (to inform, educate, and 

encourage senior cadets to consider choosing our branch); the 

USACE Leaders Emeritus conference, where we updated and 

informed the grey beards and senior leaders; the Army War 

College; Tufts University; and MIT AROTC.

Many of you have been conducting similar events as well. 

Special thanks and a big Hooah to MG Bo Temple, who has 

been a one-man, bone-crushing force at numerous schools 

and events throughout Virginia!!! I encourage you all to get 

engaged and go tell your and our engineer story. We have 

a comprehensive Stratcomms push package available on our 

website for your use.

I also had the great opportunity to travel to Iraq with the 

Chief and see a number of you. Although I would like to have 

stayed longer and to have seen every one of you, it was a great 

visit, and I was extremely impressed with what you are doing 

and achieving. 

Although it was with a heavy heart that I passed the 

Engineer Colors, I am thrilled that COL Bob Tipton is now 

our Engineer Commandant. Bob is a combat-hardened, 

seasoned professional, with enormous full spectrum engineer 

experience—in short, a Great Engineer!!! Bob and Carol are 

the perfect command team to continue the momentum and 

lead our Regiment to the next level. I know you will give 

COL Tipton and our world-class team at the Engineer School 

the same enthusiastic, passionate, candid, and professional 

support that you gave me. (Continued on page 14)
By Colonel Robert A. Tipton

Commandant, United States Army Engineer School

Clear The Way 

What an unbelievable honor to 

serve as the Engineer School 

Commandant and to lead 

our Regiment’s efforts in so many areas. 

In late August, we were given the great 

news that BG Martin had been selected 

for promotion and would take over as the 

Commanding General of the Maneuver 

Support Center (MANSCEN). While it is 

tough for the Regiment to lose this “Great 

Engineer” as our Commandant, it is good 

news for MANSCEN because the passion 

and energy that he brought to our Regiment 

will certainly take MANSCEN to the next 

level. These will be tough boots to fill! 

However, the new CG is not the only change that has 

occurred here in the past year. There have been a lot of changes 

at the school house and MANSCEN that have had a huge 

impact on our Regiment. Last year, MANSCEN converted to 

the TRADOC Center of Excellence model that transformed 

the way we develop capabilities for the Regiment. During the 

early stages of this transformation, the Engineer School and 

MANSCEN had to overcome a lot of obstacles to establish 

the systems to support this new way of doing business. I am 

happy to report to you that new systems and processes are 

beginning to take hold that will help shape the Regiment to 

better support our Army. 

The Center of Excellence model calls for MANSCEN to be 

the lead for capabilities development (doctrine, organizations, 

and materiel) and for the Engineer School to focus on training 

and leader development. The missing piece for the school 

was that while MANSCEN is responsible for capabilities 

development, the Engineer School still has a tremendous role 

to play in shaping capabilities development as the subject 

matter expert for the Engineer Regiment and to be the link 

between MANSCEN and the engineers in the operational 

Army—a role we were not staffed to do after the transition 

of our combat developers to MANSCEN. As a result of this 

shortcoming, we developed a new position in the school to 

address this gap and hired Mr. Jim Rowan, who many of you 

know, as our new civilian Deputy Assistant Commandant. 

Jim is no stranger to the Regiment or the Engineer School, 

and he made an instant impact and is the field’s direct link to 

engineer-related capabilities development within MANSCEN. 

In addition to bringing on Mr. Rowan, we have formalized 

the collaboration between the school house, 

the Office of the Chief of Engineers in the 

Pentagon, and our engineer integrators 

in the G-3 and G-8, along with other key 

engineer positions at the Army level. This 

increased collaboration will ensure that 

we articulate our engineer equities to 

better support our Regiment, the maneuver 

support community, and the Army.

We have also improved our collaboration 

tools to allow you to better connect with the 

school house. See Mr. Doug Fowler’s article 

on the Engineer School Knowledge Network (ESKN) <https://www.us.army.mil/

suite/page/126> on page 21. Please understand that the public website is intended for our external 

stakeholders and will be much less dynamic than ESKN and 

will not contain products for downloading. We will, however, 

use the public website to post all information on ENFORCE 

(more on that later).

In September, I was indeed fortunate to lead a great team 

of engineers into Iraq as part of the Center for Army Lessons 

Learned (CALL) to conduct an Engineer and Base Camp 

Collection and Analysis Team (CAAT). As a result of this trip, 

we collected a tremendous amount of great feedback that was 

recently published online by CALL. We specifically looked 

at the challenges we are facing as a Regiment in the areas 

of engineer command and control, engineer leader technical 

competencies, the engineer role in building capacity in support 

of stability operations, route clearance, and an in-depth look 

at base camps in the Iraqi theater. We are using the results of 

this document to support ongoing and new solutions being 

worked by MANSCEN and others to address the identified 

gaps. The team outbriefed the CAC leadership in October and 

also provided an outbrief at the 20th Engineer Brigade Lessons 

Learned Conference in December. Many thanks to the 20th 

Engineer Brigade, 926th Engineer Brigade, 18th Engineer 

Brigade, the MNC-I C7 Staff and all the phenomenal engineers 

working in-theater for supporting this very important effort.

The past few months have also seen some significant 

changes to the regiment as well. In October, the 4th Maneuver 

Enhancement Brigade (MEB) uncased it colors and assumed 

training and readiness oversight (TRO) responsibilities for 

the 94th and 5th Engineer Battalions at Fort Leonard Wood. 

(Continued on page 19)

July-December 2008 Engineer 3
 4 Engineer July-December 2008

Lead The Way 

By Command Sergeant Major Robert J. Wells

United States Army Engineer School

Developing junior NCOs is the 

number one priority for senior 

NCOs in our formation. First of 

all, we owe it to the newly inducted NCOs, 

and it begins with telling them what our 

expectations are. One of the first things we 

should say to them is “As the newest member 

of the NCO Corps, I expect you to be, know, 

and enforce the following standards we’ve 

laid out in our unit. These standards will help 

you maintain discipline in your team. This is 

what right looks like.” 

The young NCOs will already have a 

good idea of what’s expected of them, just 

from observing the NCOs in the platoon. But 

now we have to show them the art behind the 

science of leading Soldiers in garrison and in combat. And it’s 

a long process that can’t be completed in a simple counseling 

session. The senior NCO’s responsibility goes way beyond that. 

I tell newly graduated Soldiers from the Warrior Leaders Course 

that I don’t expect them to be the masters of all facets in leading a 

team or a squad right away, but I do expect them to be the masters 

one year from now. There’s a lot of paddling going on under 

the water that first year, and it takes the squad leader, platoon 

sergeant, and first sergeant to keep them on the right path. 

I can’t say it any better than our own Sergeant Major of the 

Army, CSM Kenneth O. Preston.

“To understand how standards and discipline are related, you 

have to start with the basic premise of how we grow sergeants in 

the Army. This is a basic three-step process:”

“Step One is to establish a standard. The items we wear on the 

uniform or carry with us is a standard, usually according to a unit 

SOP. The preventive maintenance checks and services (PMCS) 

we perform on our HMMWV in the motor pool are done to a 

standard outlined in the operator’s manual. A patrol of Soldiers 

coming off mission in Baghdad, Iraq, clear their weapons upon 

entering their base camp according to the standard published 

in the weapons handling procedures developed by the Safety 

Center.” 

“Now with an understanding of standards, Step Two is to put 

someone in charge of enforcing the standards. This is where the 

sergeant is now responsible for his or her piece of the Army—

those three or four Soldiers. It is the sergeant who conducts 

daily inspections of Soldiers’ uniforms. It is the sergeant who 

conducts precombat checks (PCC) of his or her Soldiers’ arms 

and equipment before going out on patrol... .” 

“Step Three in growing our leaders is to 

hold the sergeant accountable. This is where 

the more senior leaders above the sergeant 

have their responsibility. To see what is 

being done to standard, senior leaders have 

to inspect.”

Okay, now why don’t our senior NCOs 

help develop the junior NCOs? Here’s 

an example: I was watching a PFC in the 

gunner’s hatch of an M1151, obviously 

having problems with his M2 machine gun. 

I watched him struggle with it for about 10 

minutes. In those 10 minutes, three NCOs 

walked right by the Soldier and ignored 

him. So I went over to the PFC and asked 

him what the problem was, and he said he 

couldn’t get through the function check. I climbed up on the 

HMMWV, looked at it, and found that the timing was off. He said 

he didn’t know anything about the timing and asked if I could fix 

it for him. I yelled out for his team leader, got him behind the 

machine gun, and told him to fix the timing. He fumbled around 

a few minutes before giving up. I went through the squad leader, 

platoon sergeant, and first sergeant and couldn’t find anyone that 

knew how to adjust the timing. So I excused the Soldier and we 

NCOs had a little class on setting the head space and timing on a 

.50 caliber machine gun. 

I think our senior NCOs have lost their basic combat skills. 

And we expect them to also be proficient at small-unit tactics and 

MOS proficiency? Some NCOs have said that we spend too much 

time training tactics and not enough time on MOS proficiency. 

We should remember that a lot of stuff happens between the FOB 

and the Objective. It’s the world we live and fight in, and all that 

technical proficiency doesn’t do anyone any good if you can’t 

even make your way to the dance. 

A holistic approach to training in garrison and in combat is 

possible, even with the predeployment timelines we have today. 

The Schoolhouse has a limited amount of time with Soldiers and 

can’t train them on everything. I see the year after OSUT, BNCOC, 

and ANCOC as the critical times in an NCO’s development. The 

field has to pick up the ball and carry the NCO’s technical and 

tactical education to an acceptable level of competency. Lives 

depend on it.

Hopefully this article will spark some interest, or controversy, 

from the field and produce articles we can share throughout the 

Regiment. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. But I know 

we can find the solution if the Regiment as a whole lays hold 

and heaves.
July-December 2008 Engineer 5

We are in historic (many would say “hysteric”) 

times. The challenges are legion with military and 

civilian deployments, an aging infrastructure, and 

an unprecedented workload. The United States Army Corps 

of Engineers is making a difference now and positioning for 

the future. 

That positioning requires that we grow by recruiting the 

right military and civilian professionals needed to deliver 

superior performance. It means building our organization 

“strong” so that it is built to last. We’re doing it by hiring passionate and talented people who care about the role they play 

in providing the infrastructure our nation needs to strengthen 

our economy and keep our country, armed forces, and their 

Families safe and secure.

The right people make a difference, and they—more than 

our programs—will determine our organization’s ability to 

succeed now and in the future. Our talented men and women 

plan, orchestrate, and execute our multifaceted array of engineering operations, ranging from combat engineering to general and geospatial engineering, to massive reconstruction of 

entire nations, such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, it’s one thing to say that we need great people; 

it’s another thing to critically examine what people we need 

and what makes them relevant to our mission. In Jim Collins’ 

book Good to Great,

1

 he talks about the importance of having 

the right people in the right seat on the bus. The individuals 

who work in our Regiment should demonstrate great character 

and values. They should be fit, tough, smart, innovative, and 

adaptive. They must be energetic, passionate, and truly committed to the mission. We need to be smart in how we recruit 

for our Regiment, which means going after the right people 

who want to work for us for the right reasons. 

Collins also talks about being experts in our field. That 

starts with getting certified—your Professional Engineer (PE) 

license if you are an engineer, your Project Management Professional (PMP) certification if you are a project manager, your 

real estate license if you are a real estate professional, etc. 

We are recognized around the world for our engineering 

expertise, construction management, and skills in many other 

disciplines. Our workforce possesses extraordinary experience 

and expertise in every one of our diverse functional areas. 

But one day, our most experienced engineering professionals will leave us, and we need to build our bench now. The 

most effective way to grow tomorrow’s experts is by giving 

them hands-on experience today. We are in the midst of an 

estimated $44 billion in military construction and Army Base 

Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission projects between now and fiscal year 2013, which translates to more than 

$44 billion worth of living classrooms to train new, talented, 

and passionate engineers. At Fort Bliss, Texas, we are completing one building a week for the next five years. In Iraq, we 

have $3.6 billion worth of military construction projects. 

By designing and building billion dollar facilities that help 

improve a Soldier’s quality of life and battlefield preparedness, to improving dams, levees, and other flood risk management projects, our young engineers, biologists, chemists, 

physicists, and architects will experience unique training 

opportunities that no other organization can begin to offer.

The future is bright for the Corps. There is a growing 

requirement to approach engineering challenges in a sustainable manner, with alternative approaches to design, construction, materials, energy development and use, water resources 

management, land use, and watershed planning. Engineers 

need the ability to work across boundaries and communicate 

with their diverse base of customers. They must have effective leadership skills to guide multidisciplinary and multinational teams of volunteers, contractors, and state and local 

officials. 

These are new and exciting times, and the Corps of Engineers is blessed with a unique opportunity to lead the way and 

make a real difference in the lives of every American. 

Building Strong!

Lieutenant General Van Antwerp is the 52d Chief of Engineers 

and Commander of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. 

Previous assignments include Commanding General, United 

States Army Accessions Command and Deputy Commanding 

General for Initial Military Training at Fort Monroe, Virginia; 

Commanding General, United States Army Maneuver Support 

Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and Commandant, 

United States Army Engineer School; United States Army Corps 

of Engineers Los Angeles District; the United States Army Division, South Atlantic, Atlanta, Georgia; and the 326th Engineer 

Battalion, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

Endnote

1

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

York, 2001.

By Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp

Building Strong Starts With 

Getting the Right People
6 Engineer July-December 2008

The role of the engineer force is critical in all four 

elements of operations—offense, defense, stability, 

and civil support. Our current operations challenge 

our deployed engineer units daily with a myriad of missions 

across the full spectrum of operations. The need for an Engineer Corps capable of meeting these challenges and providing 

America’s Army the engineering expertise required to defeat 

our enemies and build infrastructure has never been more apparent. Further, the need for young officers—capable of demonstrating the Sapper Spirit in high-intensity conflict balanced 

with the technical know-how required during stability and 

civil support operations—has never been more significant to 

our Regiment.

Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp, the United 

States Army Chief of Engineers, is investigating a theory that 

indicates our engineer leader technical competency has declined over the past several years. Some examples include—

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) performance prior to, and response during, the aftermath of 

Hurricane Katrina. 

Comments from senior military engineer leaders regarding engineer support to the War on Terrorism.

Increased emphasis placed on construction engineering 

skills highlighted by a presidential directive placing stability operations on par with offensive and defensive military operations. 

Current engineer force structure that does not facilitate 

senior engineer mentoring of junior engineer officers. 

Known decreases in military engineering developmental 

assignments and a shift toward sapper (mobility and countermobility) focus in the Engineer Regiment. 

Each of these contributory factors indicates that there is a possible technical competency decline that potentially crosses 

multiple levels of both civilian and military leadership. 

■

■

■

■

■

The Chief of Engineers asked Brigadier General Martin, then Commandant of the United States Army Engineer 

School, to lead an investigation and resolution of the decline. 

The Commandant formed a coalition from within and outside 

the Department of Defense to investigate and implement solutions that reverse engineer leader technical competency decline. The intent is to develop and implement an integrated, 

sustainable National Engineer Leader Technical Competency 

Strategy that accesses, develops, employs, and retains worldclass engineer leaders who are technically and tactically 

capable and competent to deliver full spectrum engineering in 

the 21st century. 

LTG Van Antwerp also charged the Regiment’s senior leaders to focus their strategic communications towards the concept of Building Great Engineers. BG Martin did some quick 

analysis to determine where he’d be able to make the “biggest bang for his buck.” He concluded that he would engage 

several military colleges at the strategic level—the university 

president, the Dean of Academics, and the Commandant of 

Cadets. Further, he’d engage at the operational level—with 

department heads and instructors—and also at the tactical 

level, where he would emphasize the need for engineering 

students to answer the Nation’s call, putting their newly acquired engineering skills to work across the full spectrum of 

operations in support of the Army and the Nation. 

BG Martin and I visited Norwich University, a private 

school that houses approximately 1,900 cadets, traditional students, and commuters from more than 40 states and 20 foreign 

countries. The university combines nearly two centuries of 

military tradition and a broad range of traditional undergraduate degree programs in the rugged Green Mountains of Northfield, Vermont. Founded in 1819 by Captain Alden Partridge, 

it is the first private military college in the United States and is 

the birthplace of the nation’s Reserve Officers’ Training Corps 

(ROTC) program. The David Crawford School of Engineering (DCSE) at Norwich University is the oldest private engineering school in the nation, with undergraduate programs 

that include civil, environmental, computer, electrical, and 

Early Engagement Strategy 

at Norwich University

By Lieutenant Colonel Richard A. Pratt and Brigadier General (P) Gregg F. Martin

Field Manual 3-0, Operations, states that the Army’s operational concept is full spectrum operations:

Army forces combine offensive, defensive, and stability or civil support operations simultaneously as part of an 

interdependent joint force to seize, retain, and exploit the initiative, accepting prudent risk to create opportunities to 

achieve decisive results. They employ synchronized action—lethal and nonlethal—proportional to the mission and 

informed by a thorough understanding of all variables of the operational environment. Mission command that conveys 

intent and an appreciation of all aspects of the situation guides the adaptive use of Army forces. 
July-December 2008 Engineer 7

mechanical engineering, and Norwich also offers a master of 

civil engineering degree.

Norwich graduates and commissions officers through 

Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force officer training. 

Participation in ROTC, including military labs and physical 

training, is mandatory for all members of the Corps of Cadets 

and is an integral part of the Corps leadership experience. 

During our visit to Norwich, we met with the staff and faculty of the university, as well as cadets (seniors) from Army, 

Navy, and Air Force ROTC programs. BG Martin gave them 

an overview of what Army engineers do and what our joint 

capabilities are and provided examples of where officers from 

different Service components can often meet on the modern 

battlefield—such as in assignments with the Gulf Region

Division (GRD) of USACE. His personal experiences in Iraq 

emphasized full spectrum operations, including route clearance operations, bridging, and base camp development. He 

also emphasized the opportunities for cadets and students to 

participate in the summer hire program in USACE Districts 

located throughout the United States—great developmental 

opportunities for future officers in the Regiment. 

The results of the trip indicated that there is a need for the 

Engineer Regiment to develop a working relationship with the 

Norwich University Engineering Department. This will facilitate access and information flow to current engineering students, 

both civilian and military, with the intent to encourage future 

civil service as military officers or Department of the Army 

civilians in USACE Districts. The trip also indicated the need 

for the Engineer Regiment to play an integral role during the 

ROTC summer training called “Warrior Forge” at Fort Lewis, 

Washington, where ROTC cadets get a snapshot of each of the 

branches prior to completing the accession packet and branch 

requests in the early fall. The Norwich University Professor 

of Military Science emphasized an early engagement strategy to ensure that the future officers were making informed 

selections. 

A second trip was recently conducted that 

was designed to engage more at the operational 

level. The New England District Commander represented the USACE presence in the New England area—home to many Norwich cadets. We 

met with the Commandant of Cadets, the Dean 

of the Crawford Engineer School, and several 

Engineer School professors to further exchange 

ideas and develop the emerging partnership. We 

also conducted tactical engagements with cadets 

to emphasize common opportunities afforded to 

engineer officers including—

Assignment opportunities ranging from tactical 

 units assigned to brigade combat teams to 

 USACE Districts.

Graduate school opportunities.

The potential to attain professional engineer 

 certification with Army experience.

Attendance at Sapper School.

Future meetings aim to further integrate the faculty 

members and students at Norwich University with the Army 

Corps of Engineers, including the orientation of some Norwich faculty members at the Engineer School at Fort Leonard Wood and invitations to attend the annual ENFORCE 

Conference.

With our need to develop the technical competency required to execute the full spectrum of operations, we must 

reach out to the commissioning sources and future officers to 

recruit the capabilities we need. What we discovered is that 

both the Corps of Engineers and Norwich University can 

benefit from an increased dialogue, and we must encourage 

similar relationships to develop with other academic institutions. The process starts with successful Army officers reaching back to their alma maters and opening a dialogue with the 

college or university administration. The process of Building 

Great Engineers for America’s Army starts with us.

Lieutenant Colonel Pratt is the Commander, 31st Engineer Battalion, at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and a 1990 

graduate from Norwich University. He holds a bachelor’s 

in engineering technology and a master’s in education. He 

is a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth of 

Virginia.

Brigadier General (P) Martin is Commanding General of 

the United States Army Maneuver Support Center and Fort 

Leonard Wood. Previous assignments include Commandant, 

United States Army Engineer School and Regiment; Commanding General, United States Army Corps of Engineers 

Northern Division; and Commander, 130th Engineer Brigade, 

during full spectrum operations in Europe, Kuwait, and Iraq 

from 2002 – 2004. He holds a bachelor’s from West Point, as 

well as a master’s and a doctorate from the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology.

■

■

■

■

BG Martin and LTC Pratt emphasize the importance for engineering 

students to put their newly acquired skills to work in support of the 

Army and the Nation.

■ Attendance at Sapper School.
8 Engineer July-December 2008

Developing good leaders for the future is one of the 

most important and professionally satisfying goals 

that senior officers can hope to achieve. The future 

of the United States Army depends on the success of that 

goal, and our junior officers deserve the investment of time 

and resources to help them reach their potential. Professional 

development and mentorship have become increasingly important topics of discussion in the Army over the past decade. 

At the same time, our junior officers face a growing number 

of challenges to their sense of professional commitment. The 

challenges have emerged Armywide but, in some respects, 

engineer officers are at a greater disadvantage than those in 

other branches. The changing force structure has decreased 

the size of engineer communities on many installations, and 

the high operational tempo has prevented smaller engineer 

communities from developing camaraderie and cohesiveness. 

Therefore, engineer leaders must find creative ways to mentor, coach, counsel, or train junior leaders, not only for the 

officers’ individual development but also for the larger goal of 

strengthening the engineer community.

A Generational Divide

The Army is operating and transforming so quickly that 

it is difficult to predict how it will be organized ten 

years from now. Personnel management and career 

progression have become unpredictable, yet these areas will 

have significant long-term ramifications for the future force. 

To those commissioned in the 1980s and early 1990s, the career landscape facing junior officers today is unfamiliar. It 

may seem as though there is a generational divide. 

Both generations of officers have deployed to Afghanistan 

and Iraq multiple times, but the deployment rigor can have 

greater impact on a young officer than it does on one who is 

more senior. The older generation was more invested in, and 

acclimated to, the military profession by 11 September 2001. 

Those officers had served ten to fifteen years by the time the 

War on Terrorism began, and if the strain became too much, 

they would be able to retire in the near future. They may already have enjoyed assignments away from the tactical Army, 

such as in the Advanced Civil Schooling programs and in utilization assignments in the United States Army Training and 

Doctrine Command or the civilian world. Families were already accustomed to the military lifestyle. These observations 

cannot be applied universally and are not intended to trivialize 

the impact of multiple deployments on older and more established military Families. However, they should be considered 

as we engage our younger officers.

Challenges for Junior Officers

Many junior officers had a second War on Terrorism 

deployment when they had just three to five years 

in Service. They excel at preparing to deploy and 

at being deployed because that is all they know. They believe 

it is all they will do if they stay in the Army. For officers with 

Families, the challenge is probably greater. Single officers 

may wonder if it is possible to start a Family with so little 

time at home station. Under these circumstances, even the 

most dedicated officers might question their commitment to 

an Army career.

The Army has long practiced the two-levels-down approach to engaging and developing junior officers. Brigade 

commanders receive readiness briefings from company commanders. Battalion commanders target platoon leaders for professional development. The critical component of the officer 

By Lieutenant Colonel Diana M. Holland

Strengthening the Regiment: Strengthening the Regiment:

Mentorship, Leader Development, 

and the Engineer Community

Mentorship, Leader Development, 

and the Engineer Community
July-December 2008 Engineer 9

efficiency report is the senior rater block. Yet the emerging engineer force structure increasingly is not well-served by such 

practices. As already mentioned, few engineer battalions will 

be colocated with an engineer brigade. Thus, on an installation that does not have an engineer brigade, the only engineerpure, two-levels-down relationship will be between a battalion 

commander and the lieutenants. Under the two-levels-down 

paradigm, an engineer company commander will not be the 

focus of professional development by a leader of his or her 

branch. The same is true for a lieutenant in a sapper company 

organic to the modular brigade combat team (BCT).

In addition to those challenges shared by junior officers 

across the Army, engineers are at a greater disadvantage—we 

have lost much of our community. The current generation 

of battalion and brigade commanders remember when two 

or three levels of engineer headquarters were located at one 

installation. Almost all engineer lieutenants had an engineer 

company commander and most had an engineer battalion 

commander. Many served close to their engineer brigade 

commanders. That force structure was conducive to fostering 

a community to which engineers belonged. Of course, subordinate engineer elements were often task-organized under, 

formed habitual relationships with, and benefited from combined arms experiences with maneuver units. But, ultimately, 

they still belonged to an engineer chain of command that 

fostered interaction between senior and junior officers of our 

branch. Unfortunately, the interim and end-state force structures have reduced those opportunities.

Many of today’s lieutenants and junior captains do not have 

an extensive and enduring engineer chain of command. If they 

are serving in a modular BCT, they have an engineer company 

commander and, in some cases, infantry or armor battalion 

and brigade commanders. In other cases, they are assigned 

to a BCT special troops battalion where they may have an 

engineer, military police, or military intelligence commander. 

None of those young officers have an engineer brigade commander. If junior engineers are assigned to one of the few installations with an engineer brigade, they may become part of 

an engineer family while not deployed. However, the engineer 

battalions and companies deploy so frequently that the officers face a constantly changing task organization and probably will not have time to develop a tight community.

The training and readiness authority (TRA) policy is a 

move in the right direction and has the potential to benefit 

the separate combat effects and construction effects battalions. These units will enjoy relationships with engineer brigades because of the latter’s training, personnel, and materiel

Soldiers discuss road repair lessons learned during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Photo by Captain Charles Scheibe
responsibilities. However, many battalions are not assigned 

to the same installations as their TRA brigade, and because of 

the distances between these headquarters, it will be difficult to 

maintain relationships. The geographically separated battalions will naturally develop stronger associations with the units 

on their own posts, and TRA brigades may be tempted to take 

a “hands off” approach to ease logistical and time restraints 

for all parties.

The point of this discussion is not to criticize the ongoing 

transformation of the branch. In fact, modularity has brought 

many benefits to the Engineer Regiment. Leaders and Soldiers 

have experienced worthwhile training and combat opportunities by serving closely with maneuver units. By forming 

sapper companies organic to a BCT, these engineers have a 

clear command and control (C2) relationship and are fully integrated into a combined arms team. Engineer leaders serving 

under infantry and armor commanders are exposed to a variety of professionally rewarding experiences. Likewise, because of the evolving C2 and support relationships in Iraq and

Afghanistan, combat effects and construction effects battalions are also executing nontraditional missions that broaden 

their capabilities. Nonetheless, it is important that future

senior engineer commanders consider how the changing force 

structure affects junior officers in the Regiment and develop a 

plan to mitigate its potential negative effects.

Recommendations

Engineer leaders should expand professional development opportunities beyond conventional boundaries and mentor, develop, and coach as many subordinate 

officers as possible. In engineer battalions, the commanders 

must assume greater responsibility for developing company 

commanders, in addition to their traditional focus on lieutenants. Company commanders will also have to develop platoon 

leaders. While a company commander is seldom more than 

a couple of years older than his or her lieutenants, that commander will have to demonstrate the maturity necessary to 

guide other company grade officers.

The responsibility for developing junior engineer officers 

should not be limited to the chain of command. Division engineers, brigade engineers, and other engineer staff officers 

should seek opportunities to interact with engineer lieutenants 

and captains. A division engineer can invite sappers from the 

BCTs to conferences that address engineer issues. Brigade engineers can interact with junior engineer officers in the BCT. 

Essentially, we have to find ways to be counselors, coaches, 

and mentors to young engineers, no matter what our position.

Leaders of TRA brigades must also take an active role in 

professional development. Though difficult to sustain, it is important that the engineer brigade and battalion commanders 

foster relationships between the officers at both levels. If the 

TRA brigade deploys, the brigade and rear detachment commanders must find ways to monitor and guide their battalions. 

One good idea circulating in the Regiment recommends that 

a recently retired engineer colonel 

be brought back to active duty and 

assigned as a brigade rear detachment commander. Such a move 

would maintain senior engineer 

leadership for engineer battalions 

that are not deployed.

Leaders of the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) districts and divisions 

can also assist in building regional 

engineer communities. USACE 

organizations have more stability than operational Army engineer units and bring a wealth of 

technical expertise to the force. 

In many cases, relationships already exist. It is common for a 

deployed battalion to reach back 

to USACE for advice and support. 

When not deployed, these relationships should be strengthened. Few 

company grade officers know 

much about USACE. Exposing 

them to the Corps’s unique missions and capabilities might inspire 

junior officers to seek further career opportunities beyond the operational Army. Furthermore, senior 

officers in the districts and divisions can serve as sources of engineer experience outside the formal 

chain of command. Thus, USACE 

and tactical engineer unit leaders 

should work to increase interaction to benefit junior officers.

Assessing progress is an important step in any training 

event, and it is just as important when measuring the effectiveness of developing engineer leaders and building cohesive engineer teams. The Army has formalized processes for measuring personnel, training, medical, and logistical readiness, but 

it has established only marginal guidelines for assessing our 

effectiveness at growing engineer leaders and teams. How do 

we know if we are making a difference? How do we improve 

if we are not meeting our goal? These are difficult questions, 

and the answers partly depend on the situation. Consistently 

high-performing units might indicate success, but the relationship of cause and effect may not be conclusive. In any case, 

the starting point is communication and engagement. Gather 

engineers together and ask them what they think. 

Field Manual 6-22, Army Leadership, offers guidance on 

how to assess organizational climate and developmental needs; 

it also identifies the characteristics of a close team.1

 This guidance can be adapted to evaluating success in building a cohesive 

engineer community. For example, an engineer leader might ask, 

“What were your expectations of the Regiment, and is it

10 Engineer July-December 2008
living up to those expectations?” Other questions might include, “Do you believe that at the conclusion of the current 

transformation initiative, there will be more opportunities for 

career progression than there are now?” or “Have you had the 

opportunity to discuss career progression with a senior engineer officer?” From this or a similar line of questioning, a 

leader will be able to gauge attitudes toward the branch and 

develop a plan to sustain or improve perceptions. Such an 

effort will strengthen the bonds not only between individuals 

but eventually within the larger engineer community.

Conclusion

The Army ensures that leaders train their units, maintain their equipment, and deploy their organizations to a combat zone, and it measures the progress of those 

tasks. However, it does not formally or aggressively enforce 

leader development and team building. Taking the time to focus on those two areas requires extra effort at a time when 

most leaders are overstretched and the evolving force structure compounds this challenge for engineers. Nonetheless, it 

is imperative that engineer leaders find ways to interact with 

as many officers as possible and strengthen engineer bonds. 

If successful, the Regiment will be a better community and 

continue to attract and retain high-caliber officers.

Lieutenant Colonel Holland is the Commander, 92d Engineer Battalion, Fort Stewart, Georgia. Previous assignments 

include plans officer, Operations Directorate, United States 

Central Command; operations officer, 92d Engineer Battalion; plans officer, 3d Infantry Division; and assistant professor, United States Military Academy (USMA). She holds a 

bachelor’s from the USMA, a master’s from Duke University, 

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

Advanced Military Studies.

The author would like to thank Colonel Dan Grey for his 

example of engineer mentorship and acknowledge his helpful 

suggestions in the final stages of this article.

Endnote

1 Field Manual 6-22, Army Leadership, October 2006.

July-December 2008 Engineer 11

A company commander coaches a subordinate officer as their unit prepares for a major road repair mission in Iraq.

Photo by Captain Jonathan Gill
information about jobs and opportunities in a way that is more 

accessible to current students. 

At the American Indian Science and Engineering Society 

(AISES) National Conference in Anaheim, California, this 

year, the Corps provided pictures and videos of the event on 

a Facebook site dedicated to AISES, which the students could 

use to share their own photos and comments. The Corps hopes 

that this process will allow them to find a new way to let graduates know about the jobs that are available and also allow 

them to get feedback about what graduates are looking for.

The Corps of Engineers is also testing on-the-spot tentative job offers at recruiting fairs to better fill the positions it 

needs and to attract the graduates who are ready to work and 

students interested in internships. The Corps knows what jobs 

it needs to fill and there are students who are ready to begin 

working now, so this is an effort to streamline the process of 

filling those positions. 

USACE has a three-tier approach to recruiting at career 

fairs:

Junior professionals meet with the graduates.

Senior employees answer questions and interview.

Someone with hiring authority coordinates getting the 

graduates started. 

 There is a lot of competition for fresh new talent 

graduating now, and the Corps hopes that using innovative 

techniques will allow them to reach the students in a way that 

is better suited to them. Even if the students do not sign on 

with USACE immediately after college, they—and perhaps 

their network of friends—have been exposed to the Corps’s 

mission and what it can offer and may decide to apply for jobs 

there in the future.

Mr. Nielsen is a Public Affairs Specialist with the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division, San 

Francisco, California. 

■

■

■

12 Engineer July-December 2008

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

is trying new techniques such as “speed-networking,” 

on-the-spot tentative job offers, and Facebook to attract recent college engineering graduates. They are trying to 

reach these graduates in new ways, to introduce them to the 

exciting and fulfilling work they could have with the Corps of 

Engineers. The South Pacific Division commander thinks that 

if students know about the Corps, many will choose to work 

with them.

A new technique that the Division tried is called speednetworking, which operates on the premise of the speeddating model and allows multiple recruiters and students 

to meet for 10 minutes, introduce themselves and their 

organizations, and talk about what each is looking for. When 

the time is up, the recruiters switch and move to another table 

of students. 

This speed-networking was part of a three-day conference 

in Burlingame, California—hosted by the American Society 

of Civil Engineer’s Construction Institute and sponsored by 

USACE and other agencies—to meet and discuss several 

aspects of civil engineering, including career opportunities. 

These events helped to better understand what graduates are 

looking for so the agencies can try to tailor what they can offer 

the graduates. 

This technique gave the students a chance to ask questions 

that they might not have asked otherwise, because they felt 

intimidated walking up to a booth and asking. This speednetworking format allowed the students to speak with representatives from each organization. Their questions ranged 

from the projects being worked on to vacation time, but the 

most common questions had to do with where they would be 

working, would they be able to do different things, and would 

they be in charge of their own projects.

A recruiter for the Corps of Engineers said that when we 

think we know what the students are interested in, we often 

are surprised. He said that typically students are interested 

both in traveling and the ability to work on multiple projects. 

The South Pacific Division is also testing the social networking site called Facebook as part of its recruiting efforts. 

Facebook allows the students to upload their photos from the 

conference and share them with their friends who were not 

there. The Division hopes that other friends will learn about 

USACE and job opportunities from those who attended the 

conference. The Division plans to use this tool to provide

By Mr. Scott Nielsen

“speed-networking...allows multiple 

recruiters and students to meet”
July-December 2008 Engineer 13

Reserve Officer Training Corps Branch

Orientation

Fort Lewis, Washington, was once again the home of the 

annual Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) branch 

orientation, but this year the engineers did something 

drastically different. More than one-third of engineer officers are commissioned through ROTC, but previous engineer 

marketing efforts were not commensurate with the importance 

of this summer activity. The Engineer Leader Technical Competency Study revealed that engineer officer accessions have 

been declining—not in numbers, but in technical proficiency. 

To counter this erosion of skills, the Building Great Engineers

campaign plan identified specific methods to improve branch 

marketing, especially during the annual Leader Development and Assessment Course commonly known as Operation 

Warrior Forge. 

The intent of the 2008 branch orientation was not to persuade cadets to join the engineer branch but to educate cadets about the multitude of opportunities within the Engineer 

Regiment. Traditionally, each of the Army’s 16 branches hosts 

an orientation site with two to four officers as representatives 

for their area of expertise. In the past, this group of officers 

was expected to educate approximately 1,500 cadet visitors 

during a six-hour event. This year, the engineers decided to 

use a “strength in numbers” technique. More than 20 commissioned officers, warrant officers, and enlisted Soldiers 

from dive, dog, airborne, Special Forces, geospatial, Stryker, 

construction, firefighting, sapper, and clearance units were invited to explain their missions and answer questions. Other 

active participants included representatives from the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the United States 

Army Reserves, and the United States Army Engineer School 

(USAES). With so many site participants on hand, cadets 

could learn about engineer diversity and technical engineering opportunities within the Engineer Regiment. 

Branch orientation marketing efforts were designed around 

the Building Great Engineers theme of improving tactical and 

technical competency for full spectrum operations. Promoting technical engineering within the Engineer Regiment was 

one major area of focus. Efforts were made not to alienate 

cadets with nonengineering degrees, but degreed engineers 

were assigned top priority and actively recruited to join the 

Engineer Regiment. Degreed engineers were shown how they 

would have the opportunity to use their education and further

develop technical credentials. The Northwest Division of 

USACE (Seattle District) did an excellent job of explaining 

the many technical job opportunities available throughout an 

engineer’s career. 

Cadet feedback was very positive about the engineer branch 

orientation site. During the event, many cadets thanked the engineers for providing insight and answering questions to help 

in their upcoming branch selection decision. Communication 

did not end with the finale of the branch orientation. Followup e-mails with information about additional educational opportunities and some of the future goals of the Engineer Regiment were sent to cadets who had visited the engineer site. 

West Point Branch Orientation

During the third week in September, representatives 

from the Army’s 16 branches traveled to the United 

States Military Academy (USMA) at West Point, New 

York, to educate cadets about opportunities in their branches. 

Similar to ROTC cadets, West Point cadets earn their branch 

of service depending on their class rank. Years of studying, 

training, leading, and developing enable cadets to select, or 

in some cases be selected, for their branch. During the first 

week in October, cadets are required to prioritize every branch 

based on their personnel preference, but it is not until November that the cadets are officially notified about their new 

branch. USMA spends substantial resources giving cadets 

the opportunity to learn about the Army’s different branches. 

Even with a complete understanding, many cadets remain undecided until the final day of branch selection. To assist cadets one final time before branch selection, the Department of 

Military Instruction coordinates the Junior Leader Panel and 

Combined Arms Tailgate Party, which focuses on resolving 

any remaining doubts. These final branch orientation events 

are designed to allow cadets to interact with personnel from 

the different branches in both formal and relaxed settings.

Throughout the week, the Engineer Regiment continued 

the marketing theme that was developed during Operation 

Warrior Forge—Full Spectrum Engineering. Regimental 

diversity was represented by engineers from more than a 

dozen different units, to include dive, dog, Special Forces, 

geospatial, construction, sapper, and USACE. Learning from 

Operation Warrior Forge, the greatest success during these 

cadet events came from small-group discussions. Simply having enough energetic engineers available for questions and

By Captain William E. Mohr

Engineers Excel at 2008 Branch 

Orientation Days
14 Engineer July-December 2008

comments was extremely beneficial to those cadets who were 

still indecisive about their branch of choice. 

Opening the annual West Point branch orientation events, 

the Junior Leader Panel is a formal question-and-answer session linking junior officers with interested cadets. Initially, the 

engineer panel was attended by more than 100 of the 1,000 

graduating seniors. Strong initial responses revealed the historical relationship between the Engineer Regiment and West 

Point. Traditionally, the engineer branch is one of the top

cadet selections, and a preliminary 2008 poll listed engineers 

as the second most desired branch. During the engineer segment of the junior leader panel, cadets divided into small 

groups and interacted with engineer representatives whose 

experiences they wished to emulate.

The Combined Arms Tailgate Party, which followed the 

Army football game, created a relaxed environment where 

cadets were given the opportunity to experience branch culture. Open to the public, the event featured food, beverages, 

and entertainment. Hoping to show something different and 

continuing with the full spectrum engineering theme, Engineer Regiment personnel conducted mine dog demonstrations throughout the party. The engineer booth also displayed 

the wide array of platoon leader opportunities and assignments. During the evening, cadets roamed among the different branch booths evaluating the strengths and weaknesses

of each. 

West Point’s engineer representation remains strong. The 

engineer branch representative is responsible for educating, 

training, and inspiring cadets to join the Engineer Regiment. 

Her dedicated work throughout the summer and during these 

two events continues to increase cadet interest in the branch. 

The civil and mechanical engineering department also strongly 

markets the Engineer Regiment through coordinated luncheons, 

guest speakers, tailgate parties, and other social activities. Engineer support at West Point continues to educate cadets about 

all the opportunities within the Engineer Regiment. 

Thank You

Thanks to all who participated during this summer’s 

branch orientation events. These events would not 

have been successful without the positive energy and 

hard work of the participants. Your dedication to the future 

is greatly appreciated. For those who did not get the opportunity to assist with these great events, mark the calendar for 

the 2009 branch orientations. USAES will be actively seeking 

participants who are interested in representing the branch next 

year. Essayons! 

Captain Mohr is the Building Great Engineers action officer. He previously served as the 864th Engineer Battalion 

construction officer and deployed with Alpha Company, 391st 

Engineer Battalion, of the Army Reserves to Afghanistan in 

support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

On the brilliant morning of 9 October, the TRADOC 

CG, GEN Wallace, passed the MANSCEN/FLW Colors 

from MG Bill McCoy to me. We thank and honor MG and 

Jill McCoy for their great leadership, friendship, and many 

significant achievements over the past two years. We will 

miss them here at FLW and wish them Godspeed as they 

move to their new assignment as Deputy Inspector General 

of the Army. 

I look forward to serving with and supporting each of you 

and the Engineer Regiment in my new role as CG MANSCEN 

and FLW.

Before closing, I want to re-emphasize that as Army 

engineers, we are all Sappers! Regardless of your MOS, 

component, status, or duties—our Army and Regiment need 

you to adapt, innovate, and overcome, in order to get to the 

objective and accomplish the mission, whatever it is...And to 

me, that’s what being a Sapper is all about: a state of mind that 

figures out how to get the job done—no matter what—and 

has the willpower, perseverance, and strength (mind, body, 

and spirit) to see the mission through to completion ...all the 

while taking great care of our People. We are all Sappers—

Hooah!!!

I want to thank each of you for who you are and for what 

you do—I am enormously proud of you! Every one of you is 

a critical member of our great Team. What each of you—and 

we collectively—do is extremely important and really matters 

to our Army, Joint Force, and Nation. You all are doing a 

terrific job in an extremely complex, difficult, and resourceconstrained environment. I encourage you to keep at it and to 

stay on the team!!! Many THANKS to you and your Families, 

and may God bless each of you!!! 

Signing off the net as your Regimental Sapper-6...

Essayons!!! Army Strong!!

(“Clear the Way,” continued from page 2)

“West Point’s engineer representation remains strong. The 

engineer branch representative is responsible for educating, 

training, and inspiring cadets to join the Engineer Regiment.” 
Building Great Engineers by Mentoring Students

SAME Construction 

and Engineering Camps:

July-December 2008 Engineer 15

I

n the summer of 2000, the Society of American Military 

Engineers (SAME) embarked on a venture that would 

prove to be one of its most successful tools to expose talented high school students to the excitement of engineering 

and construction. Several SAME members, together with officials from the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) 

in Colorado Springs, Colorado, designed a one-week curriculum focused on general engineering and construction, set in a 

student-mentor camp environment. The camp provided specially selected students from grades 10 through 12 with a 

hands-on orientation to engineering as a career.

In this specially selected and environmentally beautiful 

setting at USAFA, students came together with new graduate 

engineers and seasoned engineering and construction veterans 

of SAME to share engineering concepts and discuss the attributes associated with an engineering career. The students 

were guided in their daily activities by USAFA cadets majoring in engineering and were exposed to topics such as—

Concrete beam design.

Materials testing.

Paradox anomalies.

Storage shed design and construction.

Leadership training.

Their mentors provided guidance and counseling by answering the never-ending questions from these talented 

students.

The success of the first SAME-USAFA Engineering and 

Construction Camp provided the initial roadmap for the development of a camp cosponsored by the United States Navy 

at Naval Base Ventura County at Port Hueneme, California, 

and another cosponsored by the United States Army Engineering Research and Development Center at Vicksburg, Mississippi. The Engineering and Construction Camps bring each 

student closer to an understanding of what engineering careers 

offer and allow them to experience the camps’ activities and 

events with student peers from the United States and around 

the world.

As a result of these camps, many of the student alumni 

have been nominated for and appointed to attend each of the 

military service academies. Camp alumni have now graduated from the academies and are pursuing military engineering 

■

■

■

■

■

careers. Through the excitement generated by the camps, 

many of the students have decided to pursue a broad range 

of engineering careers and are attending some of the nation’s 

most prestigious universities and engineering colleges approved by ABET, Inc., formerly known as the Accreditation 

Board for Engineering and Technology.

In 2009, SAME, in concert with cosponsors from the military Services and SAME posts worldwide, will celebrate its 

tenth consecutive year of conducting these camps and providing a valued service to our nation and the engineering profession. SAME is truly a force multiplier in waging the “War on 

Talent” to ensure that students and families get the opportunity to understand and seek valued engineering careers.

Be a part of this tremendous movement and share the experience of being a valued mentor at one of the SAME Construction and Engineering Camps next summer. Make a difference by helping with Building Great Engineers. For more 

information about the SAME Engineering and Construction 

Camps, visit <http://www.posts.same.org/camps>. To sign up 

as a mentor for one of the camps, visit <http://posts.same.org/

camps/2008/mentors.htm>.

Mr. Brown is a retired Army colonel and a senior executive 

with Sundt Construction, Inc. He is a member of the SAME 

national board of directors and the national chair for the 

SAME Engineering and Construction Camps. He also serves 

as the national chair of the Government Affairs Committee for 

the Associated General Contractors of America.

By Mr. Ron Brown

Building Great Engineers by Mentoring Students

SAME Construction 

and Engineering Camps:

“Students came together with new 

graduate engineers and seasoned 

engineering and construction veterans of SAME to share engineering 

concepts.”
16 Engineer July-December 2008

Author’s Note: I originally wrote this article in 2002, after 

my peers and I had struggled through the process of preparing to take the National Council of Examiners for Engineers 

and Surveyor’s Practices and Principles of Engineering Examination.1

 Its goal was to provide a roadmap to success for 

Army engineer officers seeking licensure as professional engineers. I offer both that the advice that follows is still valid 

and that the need for licensed engineers in our Regiment has 

never been greater. Current events in Iraq and Afghanistan 

demonstrate how today’s operational environment demands 

great engineers. Professional registration is one way we can 

help ensure that we will have them in our ranks. 

Several years ago, a group of Engineer Captain’s Career 

Course (ECCC) classmates and I struggled through the 

professional engineer (PE) application process. After 

hours of toiling over experience forms, making innumerable 

telephone calls to the Missouri Board for Professional Engineers, and spending a small fortune on express mail, some of 

us met the application deadline. Many did not. 

The purpose of this article is to capture the lessons we 

learned while applying and share them with engineer officers 

aspiring to do the same. In keeping with the finest of military 

operations, I have broken the process into four phases. The 

first phase involves becoming an engineer-in-training and laying a foundation for future success. The second phase is filling out the application. The third phase, which is generally 

everyone’s favorite, is studying and preparing for the exam. 

The final phase is taking (and passing!) the exam itself. 

Phase I: Engineer in Training

This phase begins before commissioning and continues 

through the Engineer Basic Officer Leader Course 

(BOLC) and assignments leading up to the ECCC. 

The first step is to become an engineer-in-training by graduating from an engineering program approved by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology and passing the 

Fundamentals of Engineering Examination administered by 

the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors. These requirements are nonnegotiable because they are 

written into the state laws governing registration boards. The 

second step is BOLC. My advice for the course is threefold. 

First, pay attention. Second, keep the construction handouts. 

Third, start a professional journal. While it may be possible 

to succeed without the first two pieces of advice, the journal 

is essential. 

Your professional journal should include a record of all the 

engineering-related projects you work on. The BOLC practical 

exercises are a great place to start. This record will make filling 

out the experience portion of the PE application much easier. 

Another important aspect of the journal is contact information. 

The application requires the officer who was your supervisor 

at the time to verify your engineering work experience. While 

at BOLC, get a good permanent standard or e-mail address 

from your platoon trainer and company commander. You will 

have to mail one of them part of your application for signature 

four years later. Your journal should also include contact information for PEs you work under. You will need recommendations from three of them for the application. If anyone in your 

Advice for Aspiring Army Engineers

Professional Registration:

By Major Richard J. Gash
July-December 2008 Engineer 17

BOLC chain of command—from platoon trainer to brigade 

commander to course director—is a PE, introduce yourself, 

state your intentions, and get good contact information.

Phase I continues with the jobs you hold as a lieutenant. 

Keep updating your journal with contact information for PEs 

and supervisors. Continue to record engineering projects you 

work on. While some of us are lucky enough to work in construction units or even for the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers, most of us are more familiar with concertina wire 

and C-4 than construction. This is not a problem. Believe it 

or not, much of the work done by mechanized and light engineers is engineering related. Route, bridge, and ford reconnaissance; bridge classification and demolition; terrain and 

trafficability analysis; and even combat obstacle and fighting position construction all require engineering and projectmanagement skills. Record them in your journal. Always fight 

to get projects that will add to your experience. A combat engineer platoon can easily clear and construct a live-fire range 

or even a playground!

Phase I culminates with the transition to ECCC and the 

start of the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination application process. Fortunately for most engineer officers, the engineer-in-training experience required to apply 

generally coincides with the move to Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri. The end state for this phase is four years of experience and good contact information for supervisors and PEs. 

If your experience doesn’t quite add up to four years, don’t 

panic; ECCC and postgraduate education (quite possibly at 

the Missouri University of Science and Technology [Missouri 

S&T]) will add to your time. 

Phase II: Application

The application to take the Principles and Practice of 

Engineering examination is probably the biggest obstacle separating Army engineers from professional 

registration. Timing, perceived lack of engineering experience, and the inability to obtain signatures combine to discourage many officers from applying. Selecting the proper 

exam date and completing the application early will give you 

the best chance for success.

The Missouri Board for Architects, Professional Engineers, 

and Professional Land Surveyors and Landscape Architects 

administers the examination semiannually in April and October. I recommend taking it right after graduation from ECCC. 

Although it is tough to juggle course requirements, studying, 

and trips to the Lake of the Ozarks, staying on for the Missouri 

University of Science and Technology degree will give you a 

chance to take the exam a second time in Missouri if you fail. 

Get an application from the Missouri Board as soon as you 

begin ECCC. You can request one through the board’s Web 

site at <http://pr.mo.gov/apelsla.asp>. Even though applications are generally due three months before each examination, 

complete yours as soon as possible and turn it in early. If the 

board finds any problems with it, you will have time to correct 

it. I found the board very willing to help.

The two sections of the application that cause the most 

headaches are Section V, References, and Section VI, Engineering Experience. Section V requires applicants to obtain 

character recommendations from five individuals, three of 

whom must be PEs. I strongly advise sending out additional 

recommendation requests. Since military life is transient by 

nature, at least one of the officers on whom you were banking 

will be deployed or in the middle of a PCS, or will simply not 

receive your request. The recommendation form is easy to fill 

out. A couple of completed extras will ensure that you do not 

get caught short. It is also very likely that you have been out of 

contact with many of your potential references for some time. 

Your BOLC brigade commander or former college professor 

may not remember who you are. If you fear this may be the 

case, include a copy of Section VI from your application and 

the telephone number of your last battalion commander for 

them to contact. 

An early start should allow you plenty of time to get the 

recommendations you need. However, if you find yourself 

closing in on the application deadline and still in need of recommendations, there is one last course of action available. 

Start knocking on doors at the United States Army Maneuver 

Support Center at Fort Leonard Wood. Because it is the home 

of the United States Army Engineer School, it has one of the 

highest concentrations of PEs in the Army. With a proper 

introduction and the right testimonials, you should find the

Becoming a Professional Engineer

The licensure of professional engineers (PEs) is important to the public because of the significant role engineering plays in society. The profession regulates itself 

by setting high standards to help protect the public safety 

and welfare. Becoming registered as a PE increases your 

opportunity for promotions, pay raises, credibility, respect, 

and security. 

The registration process involves the following steps:

Graduating from an Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology accredited program.

Passing the Fundamentals of Engineering 

Examination.

Gaining a minimum of four years (three years 

with a master’s) of verified practical engineering 

experience.

Passing the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination.

Examinations are typically administered twice a year, 

once in April and once in October. Applications must be 

completed 45 to 120 days before the examination date, 

depending on the individual state regulations.

The Engineer School point of contact for questions pertaining to the PE registration process is 

Mr. Chad Morris, PE, at <chad.alan.morris@us.army.

mil>. 

■

■

■

■
recommendations you need. (Note: The Engineer School 

point of contact shown in the figure maintains a list of PEs 

on post.)

Section VI is the meat of the application. In it, you must 

account for four years of engineering experience—all accrued subsequent to baccalaureate graduation. Here is where 

the experience part of your professional journal will come in 

handy. The application requires a brief synopsis of the work 

you have done in each job you have held. A supervisor who 

oversaw your work must verify each synopsis with his or her 

signature. Although the application appears to imply that this 

supervisor must be a PE, this is not the case. Keep in mind 

that you cannot use the same person as a supervisor and as a 

reference. Remember to include BOLC and ECCC as part of 

your experience. (Note: The Engineer School point of contact 

has examples that might be helpful.)

If you have any questions while working on your application, the best thing to do is contact the board or the Engineer 

School point of contact. The end state for this phase is an accepted application and a letter back from the Missouri Board 

authorizing you a seat at the examination. Once you have this 

letter in hand, it is time to focus all your energy on studying 

and Phase III.

Phase III: Preparation

The question of how much effort to put into studying 

for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination is foremost on every applicant’s mind. The best 

answer—although probably not the one you want to hear—is 

(of course): Enough to ensure that you pass! This can range 

anywhere from a few weeks to a few years. Each applicant 

should conduct an introspective assessment to determine how 

long and how hard he needs to study. I recommend erring toward longer and harder. It is important to note that for many, 

this period of preparation may need to start well before Phase 

II is completed.

The next questions most applicants have are what and how 

to study. Fortunately, I can offer much more explicit advice 

in this area. Concerning what to study, I strongly recommend 

that applicants purchase Michael R. Lindeburg’s Civil Engineering Reference Manual, Practice Problems for the Civil 

Engineering PE Examination, and Civil Engineering Sample 

Examination. Used together, these three books will serve as 

excellent study guides. They will also function as invaluable 

resources during the examination. The reference manual contains detailed information about the examination, step-bystep sample problems, and a wealth of up-to-date reference 

material. The practice problems book includes sample problems covering engineering fundamentals and all disciplines of 

civil engineering. The sample examination offers a great way 

to gauge the progress of your preparation. All three books are 

well worth the cost.

How to study is a little more complicated. It is best 

to develop a solid plan of action that will streamline your 

preparation process. A good place to start is by researching the 

examination, which recently underwent significant revision. 

The new exam format has two sessions. The morning session 

includes 40 multiple-choice questions that encompass all disciplines of civil engineering. The afternoon session also has 

40 multiple-choice questions focused on one of five disciplines. Applicants must choose from water resource, 

transportation, geotechnical, environmental, and structural 

engineering. Decide on a discipline early in your preparation, 

and focus your studying on that field. 

After selecting an area of emphasis, the best way I found to 

study was to work through the practice problems in Michael 

Lindeburg’s books. The first section in the reference manual 

is devoted to engineering fundamentals. Although these may 

seem rudimentary at first, I found them invaluable as a review 

of complex unit conversions and how to use my calculator. 

Mastering these two areas alone will greatly enhance your 

chances for success on the examination. The next sections are 

each devoted to one of the five afternoon disciplines. Don’t be 

disheartened by the difficulty of the sample problems. With 

practice, answers will begin to come easily. 

While you work through sample problems, take time to 

become familiar with your reference materials. Chances are 

that you have the information needed to answer all of the examination questions somewhere in your references. The trick 

is being able to find the right information quickly. Try to avoid

always looking for answers in Michael Lindeburg’s books. 

One slight flaw with using them as study guides is that by 

design, almost all the information needed to solve his sample 

problems can be found somewhere in his reference manual. 

Some of the actual exam questions may require you to dig 

through other references. You need to become familiar with 

your other manuals as well. 

As examination time draws near, I recommend taking a 

break from studying. Take some time to relax and mentally 

recharge. You definitely do not want to be burned out before 

starting the eight-hour exam. Take the last few days to finish 

organizing your references and supplies and make the transition from Phase III to Phase IV. The end state for this phase is 

the confidence that you are ready to pass the examination. 

Phase IV: Examination

Taking the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination is the last step in the process of becoming a registered PE. This phase involves actions on the 

objective. I can offer advice on what to bring with you, along 

with some final hints. Taking the examination is up to you! 

Applicants often lose sleep while trying to determine which 

reference books to take to the exam and which to leave behind. 

I can clear up any confusion. If in doubt, take it. Take every 

book you own that remotely relates to engineering. Go to the 

Maneuver Support Center library and check out any additional 

books you think you might need. Take a good dictionary, the 

thicker the better. Inevitably, questions will include obscure 

18 Engineer July-December 2008
words you have never seen before. Take your Engineer School 

handouts. They present a surprising amount of pertinent information in an easy-to-follow format. Don’t worry about being 

overloaded. No matter how many books you take, you will 

see people at the exam with more. It is easy to tell the firsttimers from the veterans of several examinations. The novices all struggle from their cars to the exam room, dropping 

books out of overflowing cardboard boxes. The veterans all 

have bookshelves on wheels they can push along with them. 

I recommend the middle ground—a collapsible luggage dolly.

In addition to your reference materials, make sure you 

think through the logistics involved in taking the exam. You 

will need a good transportation plan. This is partly to accommodate your reference materials, but mostly because of the 

road network in central Missouri. The board makes every effort to centralize the exam location for applicants from across 

the state. Unfortunately, this ensures that a direct land route 

will not exist between the exam site and Fort Leonard Wood. 

Take the time to conduct a good route recon before the examination. Struggling down unfamiliar Ozark roads in the 

predawn darkness will only add unneeded stress to your day. 

A better plan would be to spend the night before the examination in a local hotel so you won’t have to worry about getting 

to the examination site on time. 

Having the proper amount of supplies is also essential to 

success. Determine how many pencils, erasers, batteries, and 

even calculators you think you will need—and double that 

amount. Halfway through the afternoon session is not the best 

time to realize that the 7 key on your calculator has stopped 

working.

 My final piece of advice is to stay relaxed. Don’t panic or 

get frustrated. Stick to your plan of action. Don’t try to switch 

afternoon disciplines at the last minute just because you 

overheard someone during lunch saying that transportation 

was easier than water resources. Trust your preparation. Keep 

a positive attitude. The end state for this phase is walking out 

of the exam site with full confidence that you passed!

Major Gash is currently a student at the United States Army 

Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. His previous assignments include service as an assistant professor in the Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering at 

the United States Military Academy; as a company commander 

in the 864th Engineer Battalion at Fort Lewis, Washington; and 

as a mechanized engineer platoon leader and company executive 

officer in the 70th Engineer Battalion at Fort Riley, Kansas. He 

has served in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Major Gash 

is a graduate of the United States Military Academy and holds 

master’s degrees in geology and geophysics from the University 

of Missouri-Rolla (now Missouri S&T) and civil engineering 

from the University of California, Los Angeles. He is a registered 

professional engineer in the State of Missouri. 

Endnote

1

 “Professional Registration: Advice for Aspiring Army 

Engineers” by Captain Richard J. Gash, Engineer, OctoberDecember 2002, pages 48-50.

Editor’s Note: On 6 November 2008, the American Society 

of Civil Engineers (ASCE) honored Major Gash at the 

138th Annual Civil Engineering Conference in Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, with its 2008 Young Government Civil 

Engineer Award. The society presents the award annually to a 

distinguished civil engineer under the age of thirty-five who 

has demonstrated significant contributions to civil engineering 

in the public sector. 

July-December 2008 Engineer 19

This is the second active duty MEB to stand up and, like the 

1st MEB at Fort Polk, it has become part of the maneuver support 

family and by extension the engineer family. Additionally, the 

mighty 130th Engineer Brigade once again uncased its colors 

–this time in Hawaii, under its new commander, COL Fabian 

Mendoza. CSM Wells represented the school house and reported 

back that the uncasing ceremony was a sight to behold—it is 

great to have the 130th back on active duty!

On the engineer strategic front, the Building Great Engineers 

flywheel continues to turn as we focused on officer accessions this 

past summer and fall and are in the midst of rewriting DA PAM 

600-3, which is a big part of our employment line of operation. 

It was a great honor for me to attend branch night at West Point 

on 2 November where we pinned the castle branch insignia on 

136 senior cadets. Initial analysis shows that we had another 

good year with the statistics very similar to those in 2007, with 

about 58 percent having hard engineer degrees. We still have to 

compile the results from our ROTC accessions. In November, 

we held a Building Great Engineers Council of Colonels 

where our regimental leadership developed recommendations 

for developmental and key developmental branch positions in 

support of the DA PAM 600-3 update. Additionally, the colonels 

set the agenda for the work group sessions at ENFORCE 

this year.

Speaking of ENFORCE, I ask all of you to place 20-24 

April 2009 on your calendar as these are the dates of ENFORCE 

2009. We are working hard here at Fort Leonard Wood and with 

our regimental Army Engineer Association to put on the best 

ENFORCE ever! We will continue the theme of Building Great 

Engineers to keep the strategic campaign plan moving forward. 

This year’s ENFORCE is going to be an awesome event as we 

continue to focus on the Regiment’s most important resource: 

the Soldiers of our Regiment. In this light, the entire conference 

will be held at your home—Fort Leonard Wood. As previously 

mentioned, registration information and agendas are published 

on our public website. We want to see more engineers from the 

operational Army attend this year’s event, and we have gone out 

of our way to structure both the content and the cost to support 

your coming to this great event.

It is an indeed an exciting time for the Engineer Regiment! 

(“Clear the Way,” continued from page 3)
20 Engineer July-December 2008

I

n August 2008, I had the privilege of representing the 

Society of American Military Engineers (SAME) on 

a panel at the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) Senior Leader’s Conference in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The panel’s primary focus was to outline what the 

USACE divisions were doing toward Building Great Engineers and increasing the technical competency of the Engineer Regiment. The central point of my briefing was that professional societies, especially SAME, are there to help.

The mission of the SAME College Outreach Committee 

is to “promote the engineering career field at colleges and 

universities through student chapters, mentoring programs, 

scholarships, and career planning seminars.” The college outreach mission supports the overall SAME mission, which is 

to “promote and facilitate engineering support for national 

security by developing and enhancing relationships and competencies among uniformed services, public and private sector 

engineers, and related professionals.”

Those mission statements show that there is a definite synergy between the goals of SAME and the campaign plan for 

Building Great Engineers set forth at ENFORCE 2008. For 

example, one of the action items under the accessions section of the campaign plan is to “attract engineering talent by 

researching top engineering schools and concentrating marketing efforts at these institutions. Additionally, strategically 

assign engineer officers as Professors of Military Leadership 

(PML) at selected engineering schools.” An item in the strategic communications section of the plan advises commanders 

to “develop a plan where senior engineer leaders visit local 

universities to promote degreed engineers and their subsequent joining of the Engineer Regiment.”

SAME can definitely help the Engineer Regiment with 

those two items. With more than 100 posts in the United 

States, SAME has a presence near every major military installation. When senior leaders are ready to go out to local 

engineering institutions, SAME post leaders are there to help 

with the follow-up by maintaining contact with prospective 

engineer officers.

Since education and mentoring are so important to the 

mission of SAME, the organization’s dues structure makes 

outreach as easy as possible: SAME membership is free for 

students. As engineer leaders execute the Building Great Engineers campaign plan, we hope you will bring your SAME 

cohorts along. We are there to help!

For more information, visit the SAME college outreach 

website at <http://www.same.org/college> or the SAME student membership signup website at <https://www.same.org/

i4a/forms/form.cfm?id=72>.

Mr. Matthews served in the United States Air Force as a 

civil engineer officer for eight years. He currently works for 

Jacobs Engineering in Dallas, Texas. He also serves as the 

college outreach chair of the Society of American Military 

Engineers. He holds a master’s in construction management 

from the University of Texas at Austin and is a registered professional engineer.

Building Great Engineers:

How SAME Is Your Closest Ally

By Mr. Ben Matthews
20 Engineer July-December 2008

There are many changes underway here at the 

United States Army Engineer School, and 

knowledge management is a component of 

how we do business every day. To many of you, the 

term “knowledge management” means control, as if 

knowledge were something static and unchanging, 

but we all know that knowledge is dynamic and constantly changing.

Knowledge management means many things to 

many people. It can mean creating, identifying, sharing, capturing, acquiring, and leveraging knowledge. 

First, we need a common definition of the word 

knowledge, so we can define it as “information in 

context to produce actionable understanding.” There 

are two primary forms of knowledge—explicit and 

tacit. Explicit knowledge encompasses things we 

know that we can write down, share with others, 

and put into a database. Tacit knowledge is what we 

do not know that we know, including know-how, 

rules of thumb, experience, insights, and intuition. 

Therefore, knowledge management is the systematic 

processes by which knowledge needed for an organization to succeed is created, captured, shared, and 

leveraged.1

Undoubtedly, the people and teams here at the 

Engineer School and throughout the Engineer 

Regiment own and routinely manage both forms of 

knowledge and are hard at work developing better 

ways and means for their management. Using the power of 

Army Knowledge Online and its numerous tools and capabilities, the Engineer School has developed a single sign-on 

entry portal called the Engineer School Knowledge Network 

(ESKN). This portal, related to the Maneuver Support Knowledge Network, serves as the secure entry point for knowledgesharing inside and outside of the Engineer School. Up-to-date 

announcements, links to communities of practice, forums, 

training materials, the latest doctrinal publications, the Engineer Systems Handbook, and engineer personnel proponency 

issues are all available directly from this site. Also, ESKN lets 

visitors solicit assistance or information directly from the Engineer School via a request-for-information interface. Another 

part of EKSN—the Building Great Engineers page—serves 

as the site for downloading the campaign plan as well as various strategic communications products.

Soon, all of the directorates within the Engineer School 

will have individual sites set up and linked to ESKN, with 

information and tools tailored specifically to their core

missions. Lastly, efforts are underway to develop and post 

a secured version of ESKN on the Secret Internet Protocol 

Router Network (SIPRNET) for use by deployed members of 

the Engineer Regiment. This secured portal—ESKN-S—will 

help to facilitate the management of classified knowledge 

to include lessons learned; observations; best practices; and 

tactics, techniques, and procedures generated within each of 

the combatant commands. The direct link to ESKN is available on the Engineer School homepage at <http://www.wood.

army.mil/usaes>.

We have also leveraged the power of the Battle Command 

Knowledge System under the Protection.Net forums to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and information in a forumoriented environment. Within Protection.Net, we’ve created 

two initial topic areas—combat engineering and construction engineering—under the Engineer Profession heading. 

There are also useful discussions under the Environmental 

heading. These forums will help facilitate dynamic collaboration among members of the Engineer Regiment across the 

By Mr. Douglas D. Fowler

Engineer School Knowledge Network (ESKN)
We encourage interested visitors and users of these sites to 

provide recommendations and suggestions on their content, 

capabilities, and functionality. Send suggestions or comments 

to <leon.usaeshqrfi@conus.army.mil>.

Mr. Fowler serves as Chief of Doctrine, Organizational 

Design, and Materiel at the Directorate of Environmental Integration, United States Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He also serves as the Engineer School’s 

knowledge management organizational representative and 

senior advisor to the commandant on all knowledge management issues within the Engineer School. He is a graduate of the 

Army Management Staff College intermediate and advanced 

courses, holds a bachelor’s in business administration, and is 

pursuing a master’s in public administration.

Endnote

1

Melissie Clemans Rumizen, The Complete Idiot’s Guide 

to Knowledge Management, Penguin Group (USA) Incorporated, Madison, Wisconsin, 2002. 

July-December 2008 Engineer 21

globe by generating immediate feedback, soliciting input and 

expertise, and sharing the knowledge of Engineer School subject matter experts. 

Finally, we’ve taken great strides in completely revising our 

public-facing website, <http://www.wood.army.mil/usaes>, to 

a more static, content-driven interface for our external stakeholders. This site will be much less dynamic than ESKN and 

will not contain products for downloading. However, the site, 

with links to the 1st Engineer Brigade and other organizational 

websites, will be of vital importance to the Engineer School in 

providing timely information to family members about trainees, students, and key stakeholders from industry, academia, 

and our sister Services. This information will include graduation dates and related information.

In the very near future, all information related to ENFORCE will be published on a stand-alone public-facing website linked to the Engineer School public-facing website. This 

site will have a new permanent domain name—<http://www.

wood.army.mil/enforce>—and will serve as a single-source 

repository for all ENFORCE information, to include agendas, 

schedules, key events, and registration information. 

U.S. Army Engineer School Public Website

Battle Command Knowledge System (BCKS)
July-December 2008 Engineer 23

I

n an effort to raise the level of Soldiers’ performance, the 

Army has introduced a program that addresses the mental 

and emotional aspects of their performance. The Army 

Center for Enhanced Performance (ACEP), an extension of 

the United States Military Academy’s Center for Enhanced 

Performance (CEP), seeks to enhance Soldier performance 

by increasing awareness of the connection between mind and 

body. ACEP presents Soldiers with concepts and techniques 

designed to foster confidence, improve attention, manage energy levels, and facilitate learning by emphasizing how the 

mind and body interact to affect performance.

The ACEP staff, located at Fort Lewis, Washington, 

briefed the I Corps command group in November 2007. They 

described how a mental training program could be used by the 

various units on post. The commander of the 555th Maneuver 

Enhancement Brigade (Provisional) saw the potential of this 

program and asked that a trainer be assigned to work with 

one of the combat engineer units from Fort Leonard Wood, 

Missouri. He mentioned that the 5th Engineer Battalion had 

an upcoming National Training Center (NTC) rotation at Fort 

Irwin, California, and asked the ACEP trainer to Fort Leonard 

Wood to provide classroom training and accompany the unit 

to NTC. 

In January 2008, an ACEP trainer flew to Fort Leonard 

Wood to provide mental training for the Soldiers of 1st Platoon, 55th Mobility Augmentation Company, 5th Engineer 

Battalion. The classroom training consisted of an informational brief coupled with hands-on exercises that allowed the 

Soldiers to put into practice the concepts they learned. The 

next month, the same trainer linked up with the Soldiers at 

NTC and conducted refresher training. Throughout the next 

10 days, the trainer lived with the Soldiers and accompanied them on each mission to provide mental and emotional 

coaching. He was also a part of the after-action review (AAR) 

Using biofeedback techniques, 

an ACEP trainer 

coaches Soldiers 

in the connection 

between mind and 

body.

By Mr. Brian C. Hite
 24 Engineer July-December 2008

process. Issues affecting the Soldiers’ performances, such as negative thinking, lack 

of confidence, nervousness, anxiety, and 

lack of mission focus, were all discussed 

during the AARs and linked to aspects of 

the mental toughness training that address 

these issues.

The advice of the ACEP trainer had a 

profound impact on the Soldiers’ performance during an urban operations training 

exercise. Each squad went through the exercise separately. During the first squad’s 

initial dry-fire iteration, squad members 

appeared to be nervous, as evidenced by 

their poor communications techniques, 

excessively high energy levels, tendency 

to rush through each building, and failure 

to recognize potential threats. The squad 

proceeded through the iteration in a chaotic 

manner instead of performing as a smooth, 

controlled team. During the AAR, the 

observer/controller (O/C) pointed out the 

weaknesses and suggested a tactical pause before entering a 

room. The ACEP trainer repeated the O/C’s comments about 

high energy levels and the tactical pause, but took the feedback a step further. He referred to the earlier mental toughness training and explained how having too much energy can 

negatively impact performance by restricting mission focus, 

slowing cognitive processing, and increasing muscle tension. 

He also noted how several of the mental training techniques 

the Soldiers had learned could be used to control energy levels 

and direct their attention. 

The Soldiers followed the advice of the ACEP trainer and 

O/C, incorporating a routine during the tactical pauses before 

entering each building and room. The routine consisted of the 

squad leader saying, “Stack right [or left]. Slow is smooth; 

smooth is fast. Ready.” The Soldiers would then inhale and 

exhale before the command of execution—“Go!” These actions addressed the issues of attention, anxiety, and nervousness by using a “cue phrase” (Slow is smooth; smooth is fast), 

and a calming breath that helped to direct attention to mission 

requirements and counter the physiological responses that accompany overly high energy levels, such as short, shallow 

breathing and muscle tension.

During the two hours between their first and second iterations, the Soldiers rehearsed their routine using glass house 

drills and mental imagery, and the improvement in their performance was amazing, according to the O/Cs. The officer 

in charge of the urban operations site said the Soldiers had 

rushed through their earlier clearance exercise, but that coaching, reiterating the cue phrase, and taking a tactical pause before clearing each area helped the Soldiers focus and regain 

control of their breathing and heart rate before moving to their 

next objective. That helped them move in a controlled manner, assess threats, and communicate more efficiently.

The ACEP mental training helped the Soldiers’ performance in improvised explosive device defeat as well. One 

Soldier received a battalion coin after finding a piece of unexploded ordnance that an entire convoy of combat engineers 

had passed and missed. 

Improved performance on missions, however, is not the 

only focus of ACEP training. It also teaches concepts and 

techniques to facilitate stress recovery following missions. 

The Soldiers engaged in stretching exercises and listened to 

relaxation compact disks (CDs) following missions. Many 

also used a biofeedback tool designed to increase their awareness of how their thoughts affect their bodies. One Soldier 

said the relaxation CDs helped get him calm and relaxed after 

a mission. Another Soldier commented that the biofeedback 

tool showed him which thoughts helped calm him and which 

thoughts were stressful. The ACEP training program provided 

the 5th Engineer Battalion Soldiers techniques for efficient, 

effective stress recovery.

Now that the Soldiers have learned how to apply the mental and emotional concepts and techniques related to peak performance and stress recovery in a training setting, the next 

step for ACEP is to help these Soldiers use these techniques in 

a combat setting. The ACEP trainer will maintain contact with 

the unit via regularly scheduled video teleconferences with 

the unit leaders to provide ongoing guidance, troubleshoot 

any issues that may arise in the future, and train new Soldiers 

when they arrive.

Mr. Hite is a performance enhancement specialist at the 

Army Center for Enhanced Performance at Fort Lewis, Washington. He holds a master’s in sports psychology and is working on a doctorate in organizational psychology. Previously, 

he spent 13 years as a stuntman and stunt coordinator in movies and television.

A Soldier listens to a biofeedback training device.
July-December 2008 Engineer 25

More engineer officers, warrant officers, and noncommissioned officers (NCOs) are being assigned additional duties as a contracting officer’s representative (COR). With an increasing reliance on private industry to perform services for the United States Army, the COR is 

an important part of the acquisition team.

A COR is authorized to be appointed by a contracting officer (KO) by authority of the Defense Federal Acquisitions 

Regulation Supplement to assist in the technical monitoring 

or administration of a contract. There is no certification as a 

COR until the KO designates a COR in a written letter that 

specifies the extent of the COR’s authority to act on behalf 

of the KO. To prepare Soldiers for COR duties, the Army

requires Defense Acquisition University (DAU) or equivalent 

courses as prerequisite training. The responsibilities of the 

COR vary with the type of contracting and normally include 

the following:

Monitor the contractor’s progress and performance, including the completion of required reports or other

documentation.

Verify that the contractor has performed the technical and 

management requirements of the contracting according

to the contracting terms, conditions, and specifications.

Accept for the government the supplies and services received, to include certifying receipt of the supplies and

services.

Maintain liaison and direct communications with the contractor and the KO.

Recommend contracting modifications to the KO.

Assist in meeting the government's contractual obligations to the contractor. This includes, but is not limited to,

arranging to supply government-furnished equipment,

facilities, and services called for in the contract.

Provide technical interpretation of the contracting

requirements. 

Maintain files and correspondence relating to the contracting performance.

The COR is not authorized to make any commitments or 

changes that will affect price, quality, quantity, delivery, or 

any other term or condition of the contract. 

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Contracting officers’ technical representatives (COTRs) 

differ from CORs in that they have specialized technical 

knowledge, such as engineers and Soldiers with certain technical military occupational specialties, in overseeing a contract. Both CORs and COTRs require a KO’s appointment in 

writing.

As of 17 November 2008, COR training with DAU must 

be completed before attending the Engineer Captain’s Career Course (ECCC). This 20-hour block of instruction via 

web-based distributed learning was established in response 

to comments and suggestions from deployed units. The training program will require students to register and complete the

following DAU online training:

CLC 011—Contracting for the Rest of Us 

CLC 106—Contracting Officer Representative with a

Mission Focus

CLM 003—Ethics Training for the Acquisition Technology and Logistics Workforce

CLM 024—Contracting Overview 

These modules are not meant to be all-inclusive since KOs 

normally need further training, specific to the type and scope 

of the contract. 

DAU COR training is available at <http://www.atrrs.army.

mil/channels/aitas>. CORs must complete the DAU online 

course every three years. After successful completion, DAU 

provides the participant an online COR course completion 

certificate. As a result of finishing this activity before attending 

ECCC, students will now be able to complete further advanced 

training on contracting, acquisition, project management, 

joint engineering, and an appropriate language (Farsi, Pashto, 

Arabic, or Mandarin) during the course.

DAU COR training will be included in the Basic Officer 

Leader Course (BOLC) and NCO courses in the near future. 

The point of contact is Major Justin B. Putnam at <justin.

b.putnam@us.army.mil>.

Lieutenant Colonel Wall is Chief, Assured Mobility Branch, 

Requirements Determination Division, United States Army 

Maneuver Support Center, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Major Carey is Division Chief, Engineer Captain’s Career 

Course, Department of Instruction, United States Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

■

■

■

■

By Lieutenant Colonel Steven T. Wall and Major John N. Carey

Contracting Officer’s Representative 

Training at the Engineer School

Contracting Officer’s Representative 

Training at the Engineer School
26 Engineer July-December 2008

Real-world homeland security support engineer missions abound for United States Army engineer units looking for additional training opportunities that are 

directly related to their mission-essential task list (METL). 

The missions have been useful for units preparing for and 

returning from overseas deployments.

The homeland support missions are offered by Joint Task 

Force (JTF) North, the Department of Defense organization 

that coordinates and manages the engineering support provided to the United States Border Patrol along the Southwest 

border. The training missions give Regular Army and Army 

Reserve engineers the opportunity to plan, deploy, execute, 

and redeploy as platoon-, company-, or battalion-size 

elements to the Southwest desert via self-deployment, 

military or commercial airlift, or a combination of both. 

Of special interest to commanders facing limited training 

funds is the fact that JTF North funds all mission-related costs, 

to include travel, per diem, and other associated expenses. All 

costs for materials used on engineer support missions are paid 

for by the supported law enforcement agencies. As an added 

benefit, JTF North issues contracts for—

Most of the heavy equipment.

Required equipment maintenance and training.

Support vehicles.

Billeting at local hotels or military support facilities.

Ration support.

Commercial air.

Engineer projects range from building personnel and vehicular barriers to installing lighting and constructing drainage structures and service roads for the Border Patrol along 

the U.S.-Mexico border. Depending on their scope, missions can last from two weeks to 179 days. The majority of 

the engineer support missions are long-term operations that 

the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Border 

Patrol plan one to two years before execution and can consist 

of multiple-phase operations that may take several months 

or years to complete. Units generally volunteer and enter 

the planning process six months before deployment. JTF 

North executes approximately 14 engineer support missions 

each year.

■

■

■

■

■

■
July-December 2008 Engineer 27

The primary reason that units volunteer for the missions is 

that they typically get to train on 90 percent of their METL, 

to include individual and collective training. In their afteraction reports, many commanders have commented that these 

missions resulted in the best engineer training they had ever 

conducted. Units also train on technical and project management skills that are difficult to practice in a combat training 

center environment. Overall, JTF North helps round out unit 

readiness. 

For more information on JTF North and its engineering 

support missions, visit the command’s website at: <http://

www.jtfn.northcom.mil>, or contact the JTF North engineer 

planners at (915) 313-7787/7688 or DSN 666-7787/7688.

Major Day is an engineer planner with JTF-North. She has 

had command and staff experience in topographic and combat mechanized engineer battalions. Her most recent assignment was teaching in the Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering at the United States Military Academy 

at West Point, New York. She holds a bachelor’s in forestry 

from the University of Missouri-Columbia and a master’s in 

remote sensing and geospatial information management from 

the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She can be contacted at 

JTF North, Building 11603, Staff Sergeant Sims Street, Fort 

Bliss, Texas 79918-0058; by phone at (915) 313-7787; or fax 

at (915) 313-7687.

Navy Seabees construct drainage structures for the Border Patrol.

Joint Task Force North 

Background Information

Joint Task Force (JTF) 

North, based at Biggs Army 

Airfield, Fort Bliss, Texas, is a 

joint service command composed of Regular Army and 

Army Reserve Soldiers, as

well as Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Department of Defense 

civilians, and contracted support personnel. All military support for homeland security is 

based on support requests and 

threat assessments submitted 

by the federal law enforcement agencies assigned to the 

Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice. Assuming the support is 

appropriate and in compliance 

with the statutory guidelines 

for the domestic employment 

of military forces, JTF North 

seeks military units to volunteer to provide the requested 

operational support. Once a 

unit volunteers, JTF North facilitates mission planning and 

execution with the unit and the 

supported agency. According 

to Department of Defense policy, missions must have a training value to the unit or provide 

a significant contribution to national security.
28 Engineer July-December 2008

By First Lieutenant Matthew Z. Freund

For an airborne engineer unit like the 27th Engineer 

Battalion (Combat) (Airborne), trained to deploy tailored engineer packages anywhere in the world within 

18 hours, readiness is the watchword. So when an emergency 

deployment readiness exercise (EDRE) sequence began on 

7 July 2008, the battalion organized its equipment and personnel in less than a week to execute an airborne insertion 

into Fort Hunter Liggett, California, as part of a larger joint 

exercise named Operation Hydra. The training mission was 

the largest off-post airborne deployment of heavy equipment 

platforms projected from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for a 

training mission since 1991. As one of only two airborne engineer battalions in the Army (both of which are stationed at 

Fort Bragg), the 27th Engineer Battalion has the special capability of conducting the full spectrum of combat and general 

engineering operations on short notice and in nearly any contingency. The battalion’s mission, to upgrade Schoonover Assault Landing Zone (ALZ) at Fort Hunter Liggett, was structured around a notional humanitarian aid scenario. 

Soldiers and Airmen have trained at Fort Hunter Liggett, 

located between the Santa Lucia Mountains and the Los 

Padres National Forest, since 1940. The post is used primarily 

for training United States Army Reserve units. The battalion’s 

mission was to widen the crossovers and upgrade the parking 

apron to raise the maximum on ground (MOG) capability of 

the ALZ. The crossover and apron expansion increased the 

usable surface area by more than 25,000 square feet. 

The airborne operation consisted of a drop of 127 paratroopers preceded by 10 heavy drop platforms totaling more 

than 300,000 pounds of engineer construction equipment. 

The heavy drops included a 950B wheel loader, two 130G 

motor graders, a deployable universal combat earthmover 

(DEUCE), a small emplacement excavator (SEE) truck, a 

613B water distributor, and an equipment box. Within an hour 

of parachuting onto the ALZ, two sapper platoons had secured 

it with a 4-kilometer perimeter, allowing light equipment (LE) 

Soldiers to retrieve and remove the harnesses from dropped 

vehicles and equipment. The equipment box—packed with 

oils, lubricants, and tool boxes—was dropped so that LE Soldiers and mechanics could repair any damaged equipment on 

the drop zone. Only one of the ten heavy drop platforms— 

a dump truck—failed to land upright. However, a DEUCE 

soon arrived at the scene and an operator used its winch to 

pull the dump truck upright. The wheel loader’s bucket and 

tines quickly moved the platforms from the ALZ centerline, 

clearing an unobstructed path for aircraft, which landed on the 

ALZ just a few hours after the jump. 

Requirements for the ALZ repair and improvement were 

varied. First, two taxiways had to be widened by 30 feet. The 

apron required a 25,000-square-foot extension to increase its 

MOG. In addition, the apron and crossovers required resurfacing after 6 inches of soil were removed. Working in shifts, 

three LE platoons completed the mission after 60 hours of 

continuous operations. As surveyors plotted the dimensions, 
July-December 2008 Engineer 29

two scrapers hauled away 6 inches of soil (a total of 2,082 

cubic yards) from the apron and crossovers, which covered 

112,387 square feet. The apron’s grade was designed to engineer technical letter standards of 1.0 percent to 3.0 percent 

to account for water runoff. After grading and scraping, the 

crossovers, apron, and shoulders were resurfaced with approximately 4,000 cubic yards of fill. An Air Force REDHORSE 

(rapid engineers deployable heavy operation repair squadron, 

engineer) civil engineering team from Nellis Air Force Base, 

Nevada, contributed to the mission by surveying, directing 

troops, and operating equipment. 

The notional host nation, which received humanitarian 

assistance from the joint task force in the scenario, provided 

round-the-clock fuel and water resupply, allowing the battalion to conduct 24-hour operations throughout the mission. 

Host nation support units at Fort Hunter Liggett also provided 

additional graders, scrapers, vibratory rollers, and water distributors that allowed the unit to accomplish its mission in less 

than three days. Supply officers, who arranged for additional 

food, fuel, and equipment to be pre-positioned onsite, also 

located a maintenance contact truck that helped unit mechanics repair broken equipment. During the mission, mechanics 

repaired one grader and one roller, keeping operators at the 

wheel and preventing delays in the construction project. 

While equipment operators repaired and improved the 

ALZ, crossovers, and apron, two sapper platoons conducted 

route reconnaissance and route clearance missions to ensure 

that the surrounding ground lines of communication were 

viable. After certification of the ALZ construction by an Air 

Force special tactics squadron, the engineers were airlifted by 

C-17 and C-130 aircraft to Castle Airport, a former Strategic Air Command base located just south of Merced, California. In short order, riggers from Fort Bragg’s 612th and 

647th Quartermaster Companies and 27th Engineer Battalion 

Soldiers prepared the unit’s equipment for the trip back to Fort 

Bragg.

Earning the title “Tiger Battalion” in the 1960s for its 

reputation for executing demanding training, the 27th Engineer Battalion lived up to its name during Operation Hydra. 

Less than a week after notification, the battalion conducted an 

airborne assault with paratroopers and heavy equipment. In 

less than 72 hours, the battalion had improved and expanded Fort Hunter Liggett’s landing zone, greatly increasing its 

maximum capacity. The successful execution of all missions 

displayed the battalion’s ability to respond quickly to any call 

that requires its specialized skills.

First Lieutenant Freund is the executive officer of Charlie 

Company, 27th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Airborne), Fort 

Bragg, North Carolina. Commissioned through the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, he is a graduate of the Ranger School at 

Fort Benning, Georgia, and the Advanced Airborne School’s 

jumpmaster course at Fort Bragg. 

A roller operator works on the apron of Schoonover Assault Landing Zone.
30 Engineer July-December 2008

The Multinational Security Transition Command–Iraq 

(MNSTC–I) has the mission “to assist the Iraqi government in the development, organization, training, 

equipping, and sustaining of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and 

ministries capable of defeating terrorism and providing a stable environment in which representative government, individual freedom, the rule of law, and the free market economy can 

evolve and which, in time, will contribute to Iraq’s external 

security and the security of the Gulf Region.” 1 None of this 

would be possible without facilities and the engineers it takes 

to plan, design, and construct them. 

Fortunately, MNSTC–I has thought about that, even if it’s 

only implied in the mission statement above. The engineer 

staff (J-7) is ready to provide the facilities needed to stand up 

a national defense system for Iraq. Two separate sides of the 

J-7 execute these programs: the Ministry of the Interior (MOI), 

which is focused on the Iraqi Police (IP), and the Ministry of 

Defense (MOD), which is focused on the armed forces. Headquartered at Phoenix Base in Baghdad’s International Zone, 

the J-7 facilitates a program that builds everything from ablution facilities to ranges. The MNSTC–I J-7 supports the headquarters and subordinate transition teams by providing suitable 

and lasting infrastructure for the ISF by planning, budgeting, 

and executing an infrastructure program with coalition and 

Iraqi funding. The J-7 also supports the ISF ministerial transition team mission with mentorship in the following areas:

Infrastructure

Long-term programming

Policies

Budgeting

Execution

Accountability

Recapitalization programs

Maintenance programs

The MOI section is primarily in charge of facilities for 

the IP, which involves police stations, training academies, 

ranges, and border forts. Iraq shares borders with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran, and Kuwait, so the IP have 

their hands full patrolling and manning border checkpoints. 

They ensure that no weapons of mass destruction are transported to support Al Qaeda or other terrorists, maintain order, 

and enforce trade and transportation laws. In addition to the 

facilities at road and pipeline crossings at the borders, 

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

By Major Thomas D. Heinold

Before Equipment and Training, 

There Must Be Engineering

Facilities for an Iraqi army infantry brigade include billeting, dining facilities, headquarters and administration 

buildings, maintenance bays, and a fuel station.
July-December 2008 Engineer 31

internal security is also required. As the Iraqis stand up additional police forces and are issued new equipment, they 

need places to train, maintain, and operate those forces. The 

J-7 MOI is delivering on all counts.

 The MOD section services the needs of the Iraqi armed 

forces, to include the following: 

Iraqi Ground Forces Command

Director General of Intelligence Services

Iraqi MOD

Iraq’s 13 Army divisions

Iraqi Air Force

Regional training centers

Divisional training centers

Iraqi Army Service Support Institute

National maintenance and supply depots

Besmaya Range Complex

Other facilities required to build a trained, equipped, and 

sustainable armed force.

Once a requirement is identified—whether for billeting 

space, maintenance facilities, offices and administrative buildings, or training areas—the J-7 MOD works with the requesting organization to develop the requirement. This includes examining whether the Iraqis can use existing facilities, deciding 

if it would be more economical to renovate existing facilities 

or build new ones, answering questions about what the Iraqis 

will be able to operate and maintain in the long term once the 

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

project is completed, and determining 

the delivery date required. 

There is such a staggering volume 

of effort required to provide facilities 

for all of the Iraqi security elements 

that very often the required delivery 

date has passed and there are already 

Iraqi units that need the facilities. In 

these cases, the J-7 has to prioritize 

work and request the shortest possible contract periods of performance 

while still providing a safe, quality 

project that will provide years of service. In a high operating tempo environment, the process is quicker than 

similar processes back home. Projects 

that would normally take months or 

even years to authorize and fund in a 

peacetime stateside environment may 

take only days in Iraq. Similarly, military construction projects that would 

take years on American soil may only 

take months in Iraq.

Between the MOI and MOD sections, the J-7 engineers have completed more than 520 construction projects valued at more than $1.5 billion. To deliver 

all of the requirements not yet met, they are now managing 

the ongoing development, acquisition, and construction of 

more than 220 projects. MNSTC–I is helping to build up the 

Iraqi capability for future construction contracting. More and 

more work is being done by Iraqi firms that have been working alongside U.S. contractors in Iraq, and the unskilled laborers hired for many projects obtain valuable on-the-job training 

that can qualify them as skilled laborers.

As the skilled labor base develops, Iraqi firms are beginning to assemble capable workforces that can deliver construction projects. Although it takes extra effort to overcome 

the language barrier and enforce contract standards that are 

new to the Iraqis, the effort will pay off in the long run. The 

Iraqi government will develop a contracting system, Iraqi 

contractors will become more capable, and U.S. forces will 

be able to step out of the picture and hand over the J-7 functions of the MNSTC–I to the Iraqis. One such success story is 

a Joint Contracting Command–Iraq/Afghanistan project that 

was awarded to an all-Iraqi company. Although most people 

thought the period of performance given to the contractor was 

practically unattainable, the J-7 established effective communication with the contractor and helped him through a new 

submittal process. After 60 days, the contractor was nearly 

finished constructing an obstacle course for divisional unit 

training at the Besmaya Range Complex, which is akin to the 

United States Army’s National Training Center.

The contract development cell (CDC) is a J-7 section dedicated to tracking new requirements, developing contract documents to meet those requirements, deciding upon the contract 

This obstacle course for an Iraqi army infantry division is under contract to an 

all-Iraqi construction company.
vehicle, coordinating with other MNSTC–I sections to ensure 

that they have provided authorization and funding for the requirements, and executing the contracting process to deliver 

the facilities needed by the Iraqis. The cell is a team of senior 

engineers and technicians working with elements within the 

MNSTC–I, which in turn works with the Iraqis and identifies what their facilities needs are. Those elements include the

following:

MNSTC–I supply/logistics

Coalition Army, Air Force, and Navy transition teams

Intelligence Transition Team

MOD Advisory Team

Coalition Police Assistance Transition Team

Other advisory groups to the ISF that work to develop 

force generation plans, training plans, and schedules for 

equipping troops

Any agency that requires facilities or infrastructure

The next step is approval by a program, budget, and acquisition council, a senior-level working group that meets within 

MNSTC–I to ensure that funds are spent appropriately. Once 

the element that originated the requirement gets council approval, it requests funding and provides an approved funding document to the finance section, which then funds the 

appropriate contracting agency. Then the cell goes to work, 

developing the statement of requirements or plans and specifications as appropriate, choosing the most appropriate or efficient contracting method, and following through with the 

contracting agency to get the project out for bids.

Keeping track of requirements is increasingly difficult 

as Iraqi forces stand up, identify new needs, and deploy to 

the front lines to fight the War on Terrorism. The J-7 works 

closely with the Coalition Air Force Training Team and the 

Coalition Army Advisory Training Team to provide facilities that support Iraqi force generation and force sustainment. As the Iraqis increase their capabilities, they constantly change or update their missions and often deploy to 

take on the counterinsurgency and counterterrorism fights. 

At times, this leaves vacant some of their basing infrastructure, so there is a constant need to reutilize or rehabilitate 

existing facilities, or construct new facilities to enhance the 

flexibility of those who will soon assume the security mission here.

MNSTC–I uses three main contracting vehicles: the United States Army Corps of Engineers Gulf Region Division, the 

Joint Contracting Command–Iraq/Afghanistan, and the Air 

Force Center for Engineering and the Environment. The J-7 

works closely with all three to ensure that—

Contracts are solicited and bids submitted in a timely 

manner. 

Delivery dates are coordinated with the needs of the Iraqi 

forces using the projects.

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Projects are supervised and administered closely to meet 

the specifications and deadlines in the contracts.

Ever since the invasion in 2003 decimated Saddam’s 

armed forces, coalition forces have been in Iraq fighting terrorism, keeping the peace, and rebuilding the country. Not all 

of the construction is funded with U.S. dollars though. As the 

Iraqi government becomes more capable, more Iraqi money is 

funding projects, and U.S. funding is falling off. For the first 

few years of Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. funding constituted nearly 100 percent of the projects built for Iraq. However, there are no new requirements now being delivered with 

U.S. dollars. More and more, the Iraqi MOI and MOD are authorizing cases for the Foreign Military Sales program. These 

cases begin with a letter of request that identifies a requirement, which leads to the actual authorizing document, a letter 

of offer and acceptance. After that letter is signed, the Iraqi 

government provides funding to the American government, 

and MNSTC–I executes the requirement.

 Although the government of Iraq is starting to develop 

capabilities for its own construction contracting, coalition 

forces still possess a unique capability that the Iraqis do not 

yet have up and running. Although U.S. expenditures are 

starting to shrink for MNSTC–I, the J-7’s task will remain 

the same—to deliver the facilities the Iraqi forces need. Until 

the Iraqi forces have the facilities they need, the J-7 will remain poised to deliver them so that Iraq can equip and train 

its forces to assume full responsibility for the security mission in their country.

Major Heinold serves with the MNSTC–I J-7 (Engineer) 

Coalition/Joint Staff. He has been a mechanized engineer platoon leader and company executive officer with the 10th Engineer Battalion in Schweinfurt, Germany; an assistant battalion operations officer and engineer company commander 

with the 44th Engineer Battalion at Camp Howze, Korea; a 

project engineer and program manager with the Rock Island 

District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers Rock 

Island District; a task force engineer with Joint Task Force 

Shining Hope in Kosovo; a battalion operations officer with 

13th Battalion (Combined Arms and Services Staff School); 

a battalion detachment commander of 11th Battalion (Command and General Staff College); a facility engineer with the 

United States Army Facility Engineer Group; and a Command 

and General Staff College instructor. He holds a bachelor’s 

from the United States Military Academy at West Point, New 

York, and a master’s from the University of Missouri–Rolla 

(now Missouri University of Science and Technology). He is a 

registered professional engineer in Illinois.

Endnote

1

Multinational Security Transition Command–Iraq mission 

statement, “Multinational Security Transition Command–Iraq 

directorate pages,” <http://www.mnstci.iraq.centcom.mil>.

■

32 Engineer July-December 2008
July-December 2008 Engineer 33

Dedication

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

We dedicate this issue to them.

Alfonso, Specialist Carlo E. 40th Engineer Battalion, 2d Brigade Combat Team Baumholder, Germany

Badie, Private First Class David J. Special Troops Battalion, 3d Brigade Combat Team Fort Hood, Texas

Barnett, Private Charles Y. 12th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team Fort Hood, Texas

Bryant, Private First Class Jamel A. 40th Engineer Battalion, 2d Brigade Combat Team Baumholder, Germany

Bull, Sergeant Douglas J. Special Troops Battalion, 3d Brigade Combat Team Fort Hood, Texas

Girdano, Second Lieutenant Michael R. Special Troops Battalion, 3d Brigade Combat Team Fort Hood, Texas

Gulczynski, Private First Class Leonard I. 14th Engineer Battalion, 555th Engineer Brigade Fort Lewis, Washington

Hutton, Private Timothy J. 54th Engineer Battalion, 18th Engineer Brigade Bamberg, Germany

Jackson, Private James 14th Engineer Battalion, 555th Engineer Brigade Fort Lewis, Washington

Johnson, Specialist Geoffrey G. Division Special Troops Battalion, 4th Infantry Division Fort Hood, Texas

McHale, Sergeant James A. 40th Engineer Battalion, 2d Brigade Combat Team Baumholder, Germany

Setzler, Private First Class Tavarus D. 7th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team Fort Hood, Texas

Smith, Sergeant Timothy M. 4th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team Fort Polk, Louisiana

Smith, Private First Class Tyler J. 3d Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team Fort Stewart, Georgia

Stanciel, Sergeant First Class George 54th Engineer Battalion, 18th Engineer Brigade Bamberg, Germany

Wright, Captain Darrick D. Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 926th Engineer Brigade Montgomery, Alabama

I recently finished reading the article “Fueling the Front 

Lines: Army Pipeline Units” by Mr. Thomas J. Petty in 

the January–March 2008 issue of Engineer. I just wanted 

to let you know that the active Army did stand up another 

pipeline company, although it was only briefly. The 585th 

Engineer Company (Pipeline) “Roughnecks” was stood up 

in late 2005, originally under the 23d Chemical Battalion at 

Fort Lewis, Washington. 

In 2006, the 585th completed a joint training exercise 

that involved constructing aluminum pipe. The company 

also transferred to the 864th Engineer Battalion (Heavy) in 

the spring of 2006. In November 2006, the 585th deployed 

to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. 

The Roughnecks successfully completed a 15-month tour 

and returned to Fort Lewis in February 2008. In September 

2008, the 864th Engineer Battalion transformed from a 

combat heavy battalion to the new combat effects battalion. 

As part of the transformation, the 585th was transformed 

from a pipeline company to a vertical construction company. 

To the best of my knowledge, the active Army is once again 

left without a pipeline company. I only had the privilege of 

serving in the 585th for a few months as a second lieutenant 

before I transferred to another company in the 864th. 

I thoroughly enjoyed the article on the history of the 

pipeline companies, and I commend Mr. Petty on his 

service.

Captain Robert W. Green 

Battalion Construction Officer

864th Engineer Battalion

Fueling the Front Lines: Army Pipeline Units
34 Engineer July-December 2008

The 2008 Chief of Staff, Army Combined Logistics Excellence Award ceremony and banquet was held at the Hilton Alexandria Mark Center Hotel in Alexandria, 

Virginia, on 3 June 2008. Lieutenant General (LTG) Ann E. 

Dunwoody, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, hosted the event and 

recognized winners and runners-up in the areas of maintenance, supply, and deployment excellence. The Deployment 

Excellence Award (DEA) recognizes Army units and installations (Active Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard) 

for outstanding accomplishments that meet or exceed Army 

deployment standards (see table on page 35). The program 

is meant to enhance unit and installation deployment skills 

and proficiency, share innovative deployment initiatives, and 

capture deployment training trends.

LTG Stephen M. Speakes, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8, 

congratulated the awardees on behalf of General George W. 

Casey, Army Chief of Staff. He delivered the keynote address 

to an audience of congressional dignitaries, senior Army generals, senior executive civilians, and a host of Soldiers, Family 

members, and friends. LTG Speakes thanked LTG Dunwoody 

for the opportunity to address the lifeblood of the Army, “the 

logistical community and our partners in the industry.”

He said that “Logistics is a noble profession that dates back 

to Roman times, where early efforts at logistics transformed 

armed mobs to a sustained military capability. Since then, 

wars have been won and lost based on the ability to support 

the force. Since those times, we refined those procedures for 

the warfighter in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Behind every operation is a sea of human 

faces making the impossible happen—the men and women 

who are my heroes.”

Winning units and installations received a personalized 

note from the Army Chief of Staff, the Combined Logistics 

Excellence Award program commemorating the unit’s accomplishment, a plaque, and a coin set that included coins from 

the Army Chief of Staff; Sergeant Major of the Army; Deputy 

Chief of Staff, G-3; and Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4. Winners 

and runners-up received a three-night stay at the luxury Hilton Alexandria Mark Center Hotel and toured the Pentagon, 

the Capitol Building, the National Mall, and other places of 

interest in Washington, D.C. In addition, they attended the 

“Twilight Tattoo,” a colorful military pageant held at the 

Jefferson Memorial. 

The awardees’ celebration concluded with a banquet in 

their honor, hosted by Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, 

which included congratulations from keynote speaker General 

Benjamin Griffin, Commanding General, United States Army 

Materiel Command, and entertainment by the Army’s Down 

Range Chorale. 

The 2009 Deployment Excellence Award competition is 

now open to Active Army, Army Reserve, and Army National 

Guard units and installations that execute or support a training 

or contingency deployment or redeployment during the competition year. All units and installations are encouraged to plan 

now to compete in this elite contest. 

The significant dates for the 2009 competition are as

follows: 

1 December 2007–30 November 2008: Competition 

period. 

1 December 2008 - 25 January 2009: Submit unit packets 

to higher headquarters.

31 January 2009: Army Command, Army Service Component Command, and Direct Reporting Unit-selected 

nomination packets are due to the DEA evaluation 

board.

9-20 February 2009: DEA board.

4-27 March 2009: Validation team visits.

13 April 2009: Winners announced.

2 June 2009: Awards ceremony and banquet.

The DEA letter of instruction contains detailed guidance/instructions for competing units and installations and 

is available at <https://www.eustis.army.mil/deploy>. For 

additional information, contact the DEA Program Manager, ATTN: Mr. Henry Johnson, Building 705, Room 215, 

Fort Eustis, Virginia 23604, DSN 826-1833 or commercial 

757-878-1833. 

Mr. Johnson, a retired command sergeant major, is the Deployment Excellence Award Program Manager at the Deployment Process Modernization Office, Fort Eustis, Virginia.

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

By Mr. Henry H. Johnson
July-December 2008 Engineer 35

Category Winner Runner-Up

Active Large Unit

1st Special Troops Battalion 

1st Sustainment Command 

Fort Bragg, North Carolina

44th Expeditionary Signal Battalion 

7th Signal Brigade 

Mannheim, Germany

Active Small Unit

497th Transportation Company 

57th Transportation Battalion 

Fort Lewis, Washington

89th Transportation Company 

6th Transportation Battalion 

Fort Eustis, Virginia

Active Support Unit 180th Transportation Battalion 

Fort Hood, Texas

838th Transportation Battalion 

Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Army Reserve Large Unit 1185th Transportation Terminal Brigade 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania

Army Reserve Small Unit 322d Maintenance Company 

Arden Hills, Minnesota

3d Medical Command 

Third Army 

Forest Park, Georgia

828th Quartermaster Company 

Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania

Army Reserve Support Unit

Headquarters, Headquarters Company

Civil Affairs Command 

Fort Bragg, North Carolina

1394th Deployment Support Brigade 

Camp Pendleton, California

National Guard Large Unit 41st Infantry Brigade Combat Team 

Tigard, Oregon

141st Brigade Support Battalion 

Portland, Oregon

National Guard Small Unit 730th Quartermaster Battalion 

Ahoskie, North Carolina

Headquarters, Headquarters Detachment 

1144th Transportation Battalion 

Delavan, Illinois

National Guard Support Unit Joint Forces Headquarters-Minnesota 

Little Falls, Minnesota

Joint Forces Headquarters-South Carolina 

Columbia, South Carolina

All Army Installation (Tie)

 

NA

 

NA

Fort Stewart, Georgia

Fort Hood, Texas

Operational Deployment 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment 

Fort Hood, Texas

 

NA

66th Engineer Company 

2-25th Brigade Combat Team 

Schofield Barracks, Hawaii

Operational Deployment 

2008 Deployment Excellence Award Recipients

Illustration by Mica Angela Hendricks
36 Engineer July-December 2008

During the summer of 2008, national news outlets were 

not covering the civil engineering successes being 

achieved by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and units of the Engineer Regiment throughout Iraq, but rather a troubling electrical engineering situation 

emerging within the base camps housing U.S. forces. Since 

the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 16 U.S. personnel 

had been fatally electrocuted in Iraq, including 10 Soldiers, 

5 Marines, and a Defense Department contractor.

In response to these tragic fatalities, Multinational Force–

Iraq (MNF–I) stood up and now leads Task Force Safe Actions for Fire and Electricity (TF SAFE) to mitigate the risk 

of accidental electrocution of deployed personnel. Today, 

TF SAFE is proving to be a unique partnership between 

MNF–I, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), 

and USACE. This partnership highlights the technical skills of 

its first responders, the noncommissioned officers (NCOs) of 

the 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power).

Scoping the Problem

The electrical problems in Iraq are enormous in their 

number and complexity. Engineers and planners for 

TF SAFE, USACE, and the 249th Engineer Battalion 

(known as the “Black Lions”) continue to tackle this theaterwide problem, which includes hundreds of contingency operating locations, thousands of buildings, and tens of thousands 

of temporary facilities. All of these facilities require electrical 

safety inspections. To immediately establish a safety mindset 

among Soldiers in-theater, the commander of TF SAFE initiated a theaterwide awareness program to halt the use of unauthorized electrical equipment usage such as daisy-chained 

power strips and illegal hot plates. Additionally, TF SAFE 

purchased tens of thousands of certified pieces of equipment, 

such as fuse-protected power strips and outlet adaptors, to 

exchange at no cost with Soldiers for noncertified equipment 

previously available for purchase in-theater.

Senior leaders understood that electrical hazard awareness 

and equipment exchange programs can only do so much. They 

felt that the root cause for the accidental shocks and electrocutions could be traced to the improper electrical wiring of temporary U.S. facilities. Recent statistics support their conclusion, indicating that the majority of reported electrical shocks 

occurred while Soldiers conducted daily tasks in container 

express (CONEX) units, containerized housing units (CHUs), 

and ablution (AB) or hygiene units.

Electrical shocks in facilities are avoidable. In certain cases 

in-theater, improperly wired CONEX, CHU, and AB units—

combined with equipment failures—resulted in electrocutions. This could have been avoided in certain cases through 

the emplacement of proper electrical bonding and grounding 

systems. The proper electrical wiring of CONEX, CHU, and 

AB units mitigates the risk of future accidental electrocutions. 

A safely wired facility is considered “bonded and grounded” 

with the presence of a wiring system that permanently joins 

all metallic parts within a facility or unit and provides a safe 

path for electrical current to travel back to its source, or to the 

ground. Before bonding and grounding inspections and repairs 

could commence, a theaterwide electric code was needed to 

determine the inspection and repair standards, and that code 

would be the National Electric Code (NEC). With this standard in place, TF SAFE and USACE leaders focused training 

on NEC bonding and grounding compliance to inspect, report, 

and repair the wiring problems.

Providing Technical Competence

The 249th is a versatile power generation battalion assigned to USACE to provide commercial-level power 

to military units and federal relief organizations during full spectrum operations. When ordered to deploy to TF 

SAFE, the battalion and its eight active platoons were experiencing an extremely high operations tempo. The equivalent 

of one platoon was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom, 

By Lieutenant Colonel Paul B. Olsen
July-December 2008 Engineer 37

including an emergency power plant installation. Two platoons were already deployed to support Operation Iraqi Freedom, with two more platoons replacing them. The equivalent 

of one platoon was preparing to deploy on a separate overseas 

mission and other missions all over the world. With Hurricanes Gustav, Hanna, and Ike brewing, one platoon was being 

held in reserve in case it was needed stateside. The battalion 

had one remaining platoon available for duty with TF SAFE.

The deployment of this platoon signaled the initial USACE 

support response to TF SAFE. On 6 September 2008, the 

platoon of 14 NCOs from Alpha Company, 249th Engineer 

Battalion, traveled from Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, to Winchester, Virginia, to attend a week-long deployment preparation course, as well as initial bonding and grounding instruction. The platoon arrived in Kuwait by 14 September to certify 

on theater-required Warrior Tasks and reported to TF SAFE in 

Baghdad on 19 September, one day ahead of schedule. Two 

senior NCOs from Bravo Company, 249th Engineer Battalion, augmented TF SAFE to form its operations cell.

Electricians from across USACE followed the 249th Engineer Battalion Soldiers. Under a refined deployment plan, 

all inspectors first travel to the USACE Deployment Center at 

Winchester, Virginia. There they get uniforms, equipment, and 

refresher training on bonding and grounding before deploying 

to Victory Base. The USACE plan is to send approximately 

125 electricians and 37 fire protection personnel to TF SAFE 

by December 2008.

Providing Organizational Competence

While the platoon from Alpha Company and the initial 

USACE electricians were deploying, TF SAFE wasted no 

time in its preparations to begin NEC compliance inspections. Although the inbound inspectors were current with the 

bonding and grounding requirements of the NEC, additional 

theater-specific training was required. A second one-week 

training course under the instruction of a master electrician/

certified inspector and a DCMA electrical engineer prepared 

the inspectors for what they would soon see in-theater. On 

25 September 2008, TF SAFE graduated its first class of 14 

inspectors from the 249th Engineer Battalion. These 14 Black 

Lions were divided into two groups to better address the two 

categories of TF SAFE inspections. Ten Soldiers would respond to the facilities under the Logistics Civil Augmentation 

Program (LOGCAP) contract to ensure contractor compliance 

with the NEC, and four would respond to facilities not under LOGCAP contract to oversee the repair of noncompliant 

electrical systems. The command and control task was overseen by the 249th Engineer Battalion’s liaison officer and two 

NCOs.

Using a 21-point inspection checklist, the 249th Engineer 

Battalion NCOs inspected a large group of CHUs on Victory 

Base. They found that the majority of the units were not properly bonded because they were missing a bonding jumper wire 

common to most NEC-compliant distribution panels. Although 

this fault only requires a 10-minute fix, it may be a common 

problem throughout the thousands of CHUs in-theater.

Early inspection results from contingency operating locations (non-LOGCAP facilities) suggested a more serious 

problem. Some electrical work at these small, strategic bases 

was not in compliance with the NEC, or with any code for that 

matter. In defense of the commanders of the area of operations, 

the noncompliant electrical work was often the result of a successful counterinsurgency tactic: to support emerging Iraqi 

micro-economies, the Commander’s Emergency Reconstruction Program allows local contractors to do electrical work. In 

the case of all inspections, when severe faults (those that pose 

a dire threat to life) are identified, the 249th Engineer Battalion NCOs and USACE electricians immediately repair them. 

Lower risk faults are prioritized and repaired by contracted 

electricians or, in the case of area of operation commanders, 

directed to be repaired by qualified military electricians.

Conclusion

Although TF SAFE cannot reverse the tragic electrocutions of 16 U.S. personnel, its work highlights the ability of USACE and DCMA to successfully cooperate to counter the significant theaterwide challenge posed by 

accidental electrocutions. Soldiers in the grade of specialist 

and sergeant interested in joining the 249th Engineer Battalion should contact Command Sergeant Major Clint Pearson at 

<clinton.pearson@us.army.mil>.

Lieutenant Colonel Olsen commands the 249th Engineer 

Battalion (Prime Power). He holds masters’ in business management and civil engineering and is a licensed professional 

engineer in Virginia.

Haphazard wiring at a former Iraqi army facility

Photo by Lieutenant Colonel Paul B. Olsen
38 Engineer July-December 2008

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description 

(and Current Status)

Publications Currently Under Revision

FM 3-34 Engineer Operations Jan 04

FM 3-34.22 

(FM 3-34.221) 

(FM 5-71-2)

(FM 5-71-3)

(FM 5-7-30)

Engineer Operations – 

Brigade Combat Team 

and Below

Pending 

(Jan 05) 

(Jun 96) 

(Oct 95) 

(Dec 94)

This is the engineer keystone manual. It encompasses all engineer 

doctrine; integrates the three engineer functions of combat, general, and 

geospatial engineering; and addresses engineer operations across the 

entire spectrum of operations.

Status: The estimated date for posting to Army Knowledge Online (AKO) 

is Winter 2008/2009.

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center 

Training and Doctrine Development Department 

Doctrine Division, Engineer Branch

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

FM 3-90.11 

(FM 3-34.2)

Combined Arms Mobility 

Operations

Aug 00

Combat Engineering

This is a new manual that will encompass engineer operations in support 

of all engineer operations above the BCTs (division, corps, and theater). 

The intent is to consolidate and revise three engineer FMs that provide 

doctrinal guidance for the entire spectrum of engineer operations 

supporting echelons above the BCT level. This manual will supersede 

FM 5-71-100, FM 5-100-15 and FM 5-116.

Status: Preparing the final draft for staffing.

FM 3-34.23 

(FM 5-116)

(FM 5-100-15)

(FM 5-71-100)

Engineer Operations –

Echelons Above Brigade 

Combat Team

Pending

(Feb 99)

(Jun 95)

(Apr 93)

This is a full revision, to include renaming and renumbering of FM 3-34.2, 

Combined Arms Breaching Operations. Changes in the force structure 

have required adjustment of the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) 

associated with breaching and clearance operations.

Status: On hold for release of FM 3-90, Tactics.

FM 3-90.13 

(FM 5-102) 

(FM 90-7)

Combined Arms Obstacle 

Integration

Sept 94 

Mar 85

This revised manual will contain the basic fundamentals associated 

with countermobility operations and will incorporate aspects of the 

contemporary operating environment (COE).

Status: On hold for release of FM 3-90, Tactics.

This new manual will encompass engineer operations in support of 

brigade combat teams (BCTs) (heavy, infantry, and Stryker–the armored 

cavalry regiment) and their primary subordinate units (infantry battalion, 

Stryker battalion, combined arms battalion, and the reconnaissance 

squadron). This manual will supersede FM 3-34.221, FM 5-7-30, FM 

5-71-2, and FM 5-71-3. 

Status: The estimated date for posting to AKO is Spring 2009.

FM 3-34.300 

(FM 5-103)

Survivability Jun 85 This manual provides survivability information needed by commanders and 

staff at the tactical level. It includes guidance on integrating survivability 

into planning and order production and creation of the engineer running 

estimate. It provides examples of a survivability capabilities card, matrix, 

and timeline to assist with the planning, revision, and conduct of specific 

survivability tasks.

Status: On hold for release of FM 3-10, Protection.
July-December 2008 Engineer 39

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description 

(and Current Status)

Combat Engineering (continued)

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center 

Training and Doctrine Development Department 

Doctrine Division, Engineer Branch

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

FM 3-34.281

(FM 20-11)

Military Diving Jan 99 This manual, formerly an adaptation of the Navy diving manual, will 

support one of the modular units of the MEF. Within the Army, it is used 

by special operations forces, as well as engineer divers. The entire 

Navy diving manual will not be adopted; instead, the targeted sections 

applying to Army diving use will be adopted with other Army-specific 

considerations being added.

Status: Final draft; expect publication in Spring 2009.

FM 3-34.400 

(FM 5-104)

General Engineering Nov 86 This manual describes the operational environment (OE) and how to 

apply and integrate general engineering principals in support of full 

spectrum operations. It focuses on the establishment and maintenance of 

lines of communications and engineer support to sustainment operations 

throughout the area of operation. Although not designated as a multiService publication, it is intended to inform all Service components of the 

types of general engineering tasks, planning considerations, the variety of 

units available to perform them, and the capabilities of Army engineers to 

accomplish them. 

Status: The estimated posting to AKO is Spring 2009.

General Engineering

FM 3-34.410

Volumes I & II 

(FM 5-430-00-1 

& 5-430-00-2)

Design of Theater of 

Operations Roads, Airfields, 

and Helipads

Aug 94; 

Sep 94

This manual will serve as a reference for engineer planners in support of 

joint and theater operations in the design of roads, airfields, and helipads. 

This manual is currently dual-designated with the Air Force. The Navy 

plans to adopt it as well.

Status: Adjudicating comments on the final draft.

FM 3-34.451

(FM 5-472)

Materials Testing Dec 92 This manual will provide technical information for obtaining samples and 

performing engineering tests and calculations on soils, bituminous paving 

mixtures, and concrete. For use in military construction. The test procedures and terminology will conform to the latest methods and specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the 

American Concrete Institute (ACI), and the Portland Cement Association 

(PCA), with alternate field testing methods and sampling techniques when 

complete lab facilities are unavailable or impractical to use.

Status: Adjudicating comments on the final draft.

FM 3-34.465 

(FM 3-34.465 

& FM 3-34.468)

Quarry Operations Mar 05; 

Dec 03 

(Apr 94)

This manual outlines the methods and procedures used in the exploration 

for and operation of pits and quarries. It provides information on equipment 

required for operating pits and quarries and for supplying crushed 

mineral products, but does not cover the operation of the stated types of 

equipment. This is a collaborative effort with the Navy and includes the 

newest technologies and current practices.

Status: Preparing the final draft for staffing to the force.

This manual is a guide for planning, designing, and drilling wells. It focuses 

on techniques and procedures for installing wells and includes expedient 

methods for digging shallow water wells, such as hand-dug wells. This is 

a collaborative effort with the Navy and includes the newest technologies, 

current practices, and revised formulas.

Status: The estimated date for posting to AKO is Spring 2009.

FM 3-34.469 

(FM 5-484)

Multi-Service Well Drilling 

Operations

Mar 94
40 Engineer July-December 2008

Publication 

Number

Title Date Description 

(and Current Status)

General Engineering (continued)

U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center 

Training and Doctrine Development Department 

Doctrine Division, Engineer Branch

Engineer ngineer Doctrine octrine Update

FM 3-34.485 

(FM 5-415)

Firefighting Operations Feb 99 This manual gives directions on deploying and using engineer firefighting 

teams. These teams provide fire prevention/protection, aircraft crash/

rescue, natural cover, and hazardous material (HAZMAT) (incident) 

responses within a theater of operation (TO). This is a parallel effort with 

the revision of the firefighting Army regulation (AR) to bring both policy 

and doctrine current with required certifications, newest technologies, and 

current practices.

Status: Initiating the program directive and developing the initial draft.

FM 3-34.500 

(FM 3-100.4)

Environmental Considerations 

in Military Operations

Jun 00 This manual provides environmental protection procedures during all 

types of operations. It states the purposes of military environmental 

protection, a description of legal requirements, and a summary of current 

military programs. It also describes how to apply risk management 

methods to identify actions that may harm the environment and 

appropriate steps to prevent or mitigate damage.

Status: The estimated date for posting to AKO is Spring 2009

Geospatial Engineering

FM 3-34.600 

(FM 3-34-230)

Geospatial Operations 3 Aug 00 This full revision of FM 3-34.230, Geospatial Operations, will incorporate 

changes as a result of FM 3-34, Engineer Operations, and FM 3-0, 

Operations. Geospatial engineering consists of those engineer 

capabilities and activities that contribute to a clear understanding of the 

physical environment by providing geospatial information and service to 

commanders and staffs.

Status: Preparing the initial draft.

NOTE: Current engineer publications can be accessed and downloaded in electronic format from the Reimer Digital 

Library at <http://www.adtdl.army.mil> or the MSKN website at <https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/500629>. The manuals discussed in this article are currently under development. Drafts may be obtained during the staffing process or 

by contacting the engineer doctrine branch at: Commercial 573-563-0003, DSN 676-0003, or <douglas.merrill@us.army.

mil>. The development status of these manuals was current as of 5 November 2008.

Engineer Doctrine Contact Update

The Engineer Doctrine team would like to introduce to the 

Regiment its newest member, Mr. Doug Merrill, who is taking over 

from Mr. Jeff Beacham as the Engineer Senior Doctrine Analyst. 

Doug’s Army Knowledge Online (AKO) contact information is 

<douglas.merrill@us.army.mil>. If you haven’t already, you will 

soon begin to see the staffing of draft doctrine coming to you 

from Doug. 

A new Maneuver Support Knowledge Network (MSKN) 

website has been established for Engineer Doctrine. There you 

can download the current manuals in the Engineer Doctrinal 

Hierarchy, as well as drafts of the various manuals under revision, 

and can stay updated on the status of those revisions and view 

the final comment matrices on each draft. The page may be 

reached through the MSKN homepage or via this link, which goes 

directly to the Engineer page vice the MSKN homepage after 

AKO login: <https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/500629>.

The Engineer Doctrine element is the lead for the Regiment’s 

doctrine. The Engineer School’s Doctrine Division is consolidated 

at the MANSCEN level within the MANSCEN Directorate of 

Training (MDoT) Doctrine Division. The telephone numbers for 

Engineer Doctrine are—Doctrine Chief, (573) 563-7537; Senior 

Doctrine Analyst, (573) 563-0003 (DSN prefix, 676-). 

The mailing address for written correspondence is: 

Commandant, United States Army Engineer School, ATTN: 

ATZT-TDD-E, 320 MANSCEN Loop, Suite 220, Fort Leonard 

Wood, Missouri 65473-8929.

For electronic correspondence, the generic NIPR e-mail 

address has changed to <leon.mdottddengdoc@conus. 

army.mil>.
July-December 2008 Engineer 41

The National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, California, remains at the forefront of training for the War on Terrorism. Rotational unit training is conducted in 

conjunction with the latest tactics, techniques, and procedures 

(TTP) from the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters, as well as current and emerging doctrine using situational training exercises (STXs) and full spectrum operations mission rehearsal 

exercises (MREs). The training is now embedded with a set 

of counterinsurgency (COIN) fundamentals based on Field 

Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency. NTC can train all types of 

engineer units, to include the following: 

Mobility augmentation companies

Horizontal/vertical construction companies

Organic maneuver brigade engineer companies

The purpose of the training at NTC remains focused on 

helping the unit see its strengths and weaknesses and get better each day. This article focuses on the training NTC offers 

to engineer units.

Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, 

and Integration

Arotation at NTC begins with a 5-day stage of building combat power called reception, staging, onward movement, and integration (RSOI), followed by a 

14-day MRE. The MRE is typically divided into a 6- to 8-day 

■

■

■

STX followed by full spectrum training for the remainder of 

the rotation, culminating in a brigade-level operation. The engineer units that train here continue to remain as flexible and 

adaptive as ever, whether conducting route clearance operations, constructing entry control points (ECPs), or supporting 

maneuver forces for an out-of-sector mission. Engineers continue to be at the tip of the spear in both lethal and nonlethal 

missions.

The RSOI process continues to evolve and change with 

an ever more robust schedule of training events and equipment distribution for the rotational unit. The engineer units 

that come to NTC find this is a time of fast-paced training 

with new equipment drawn from the Army Center of Excellence (ACOE). The equipment listing from ACOE is not 

all-encompassing and continues to evolve as NTC receives 

new equipment that not only enhances training but also helps 

improve a unit’s combat readiness. Now engineer units must 

balance the prerequisites of rail download operations, Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) installation, negotiations training, and vehicle and equipment preparation while simultaneously training on the aforementioned 

list of equipment. ACOE training includes many different 

focuses: robotics, route clearance equipment such as the Buffalo and Husky, and tools such as the Biometric Automated 

Toolset and Handheld Interagency Identity Detection Equipment. Training on intelligence-gathering equipment for intelligence section personnel will assist them in the fight against

By Major Larry J. Lyle, Jr.
42 Engineer July-December 2008

improvised explosive devices (IEDs). After 5 days, RSOI 

training transitions to a combined arms operation with a tactical road march into “The Box” and the occupation of forward 

operating bases (FOBs) to begin conducting company-level 

STX lanes and the battalion/brigade relief in place (RIP)/

transfer of authority (TOA) process. 

Situational Training Exercises

The STX lane training at NTC drills down to the Soldier and company team levels. A full rotation of STX lane training is executed throughout NTC with a 

specified level of enemy personnel, civilians on the battlefield 

(to include Iraqi-American role players), and real-time afteraction review (AAR) capability for the most realistic training 

available. Possible STX missions include the following:

Area clearance

Route clearance

Mounted combat patrol

Dismounted combat patrol

FOB/ECP security

Medical trauma

COIN classes

Personnel recovery

STX lanes focus on collective training based on the individual Soldier skill sets gained during RSOI. Each lane is 

executed using an observer/controller script that is standard 

throughout the operations group. Battalions and companies 

can tailor lane specifics to meet their training objectives.

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

STX lanes execution is normally conducted at the platoon level for route clearance and FOB/ECP security, and at the company level when conducting mounted and dismounted combat 

patrol. Additionally, units can request lanes that are tailored 

to other training if they request it at least 90 days out. Feedback on the STX lanes is immediate, with AARs after every 

iteration. Units can retrain multiple times on a lane if leaders 

want to increase readiness or train on different TTP related to 

the lane.

Live-fire training such as convoy operations, urban operations, and air-ground integration can also be conducted during 

STX lane training when coordinated through the higher unit 

headquarters of the brigade conducting the rotation. Soldiers 

and crews must be qualified on their individual weapons or 

must have conducted crew qualification to standard to participate in live-fire training. Engineer units have also conducted 

live demolitions training at NTC, to include dynamic breaching charges in the urban environment.

Full Spectrum Operations

Full spectrum operations begin after the RIP/TOA 

has been conducted and the rotational unit assumes 

control of the battlefield. Full spectrum missions for

engineer units may include route clearance/sanitation, counterIED working group, and division-directed construction or 

“Engineers continue to be at the tip 

of the spear in both lethal and 

nonlethal missions.”

An engineer element conducts route clearance operations.
July-December 2008 Engineer 43

improvement operations at FOBs, ECPs, combat outposts, or 

joint coordination centers. The counter-IED fight encompasses a significant amount of the full spectrum operations effort 

as engineers work in conjunction with the land-owning unit. 

Route clearance operations training teaches units to incorporate route clearance team efforts with the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance planning of the maneuver unit 

and the historical pattern analysis of IED attacks within the 

area of operations. The counter-IED fight incorporates all elements—to include battalion and brigade staff integration—as 

well as the planning, preparation, and subsequent execution 

of the patrol matrices.

The IEDs replicated at NTC represent the latest emerging threats of anti-Iraqi forces from the Iraq and 

Afghanistan theaters. Units are continually 

challenged by a well-rehearsed enemy 

in a realistic environment. 

NTC continues to give the 

rotational unit as many TTP 

as possible to “add to their 

kit bag,” and while not all 

may pertain to the unit’s assigned area of responsibility 

in-theater, they nevertheless 

increase the knowledge base 

of the Soldiers and the unit. 

Also, Soldiers are encouraged to 

use skills gleaned from United States Army schools as part of 

their training.

Conclusion

NTC continues to offer engineer units the same worldclass training that it has since its inception in 1982. The War on Terrorism and the rapidly changing pace 

of the United States Army mandates the need for the combat 

training centers to design and conduct training as current as 

the fight in-theater. Training at NTC will continue to reflect 

the need for intensely focused, mission-specific training for 

this fight, and provide the Army’s Soldiers and leaders with 

the best training in the world.

Major Lyle is an observer/controller with 

the Sidewinder Team, Operations 

Group, at NTC. He is the assistant 

division engineer for the Operations Group and has previously 

served as a battalion task force 

engineer trainer, senior engineer company primary, senior 

armor company primary, and 

senior infantry company primary on the light infantry task 

force team (Tarantula) while 

assigned to NTC. 

A Buffalo mine-protected vehicle interrogates an IED.
44 Engineer July-December 2008

One hundred years from now, when the Army’s 

senior leaders reflect on how well the Army of 2008 

coped with its challenges across the globe, will they 

conclude that the Army succeeded by adopting a strategic 

vision that included sustainable development?1 The answer 

should be in the affirmative. 

Sustainable development owes its understanding to the 

concept of sustainability, which is defined as meeting present 

needs without compromising the ability of future generations 

to meet their own needs.2

 In other words, it means not 

squandering, depleting, or abusing the earth and its resources, 

but enhancing, enriching, and preserving them.3 An Army 

that focuses on sustainability is an institution that seeks to 

maintain its organizational vitality and recognizes and values 

its stewardship responsibilities. Thus, institutionalizing 

sustainability through education and making it an integral 

feature of military operations will not only facilitate its 

introduction into Army culture but makes eminent sense for 

mission success as well.

Defining Sustainability

The term sustainability can be confusing to some 

in the Army because it sounds similar to other 

frequently used Army terms such as sustainment or 

By Colonel Timothy E. Hill
July-December 2008 Engineer 45

stability. Sustainment is the provision of logistics 

and personnel services required to maintain 

and prolong operations until successful 

mission accomplishment.4

 Logisticians 

discuss sustainment issues to keep the 

force supplied and ready. Stability 

operations, on the other hand, is the 

Army’s all-encompassing doctrinal 

term for peacekeeping or peace 

enforcement. Stability operations 

are related to missions such 

as humanitarian and civic 

assistance, counterterrorism, 

counterinsurgency, and 

counterdrug efforts.5 The 

Department of Defense 

defines stability operations 

as the military and civilian 

activities conducted across 

the spectrum from peace to 

conflict in order to establish 

or maintain order in states and 

regions.6

 This term describes 

where military forces may be 

employed to restore order and stability 

within a state or region where competent civil authority has 

ceased to function. These forces may also be called upon to 

assist in the maintenance of order and stability in areas where 

they are threatened, where the loss of order and stability 

threatens international stability, or where human rights are 

endangered.7 Sustainment and stability operations produce 

results in the short-term while sustainability, in contrast, 

requires future thinking and a systems approach to provide 

long-term strategies and solutions for current and future 

challenges. 

The Army defines sustainability as a comprehensive 

systems approach to planning and decision-making designed 

to sustain the natural infrastructure, which includes the land, 

water, air, and energy resources required to conduct our 

mission.8 The Army Strategy for the Environment notes that 

sustainability benefits from the interrelationships of the triple 

bottom line of mission, environment, and community.9

 Yet, 

sustainability has other salutary features. 

Sustainability, for example, expands the traditional military 

concept of stability10 by requiring planners and operators to 

consider societal and environmental factors11 during stability 

operations. Sustainability also can enhance military operations 

through base operations by providing more flexibility, 

reducing the logistics tail, and providing greater freedom for 

independent action for U.S. forces.12 Additionally, reducing the 

logistics tail can reduce reliance on contractors by eliminating 

demands on the local infrastructure and environment. In 

overseas operations, reducing the number of contractors and 

logistics requirements reduces overall operational security 

requirements, thereby lessening costs and the likelihood of 

U.S. forces being injured, killed, or kidnapped. 

Lastly, sustainability addresses other 

deleterious effects of military operations. 

For example, drawing utility services such 

as power, water, sanitation, and waste 

management; labor; materials; or other 

resources from the local environment 

can cause resource shortages, inflation, 

social dislocation, and disruption of 

local economies.13 Thus, attention 

to sustainability is the means by 

which the Army can enhance 

its capabilities in several 

mission dimensions—

facilities management, 

combat operations, and 

nation building. So how 

does the Army get there? 

There are numerous paths, 

but one area to consider is 

education in both the formal 

education system and the 

operational environment.

Educating the Force

Educating the force can originate in the Army education 

system, but this is not the only place a Soldier will 

learn about sustainability. For example, the use of 

operations orders can help a Soldier learn about sustainability 

by the tasks the commander implies or specifies within the 

mission. The application of the officer evaluation report 

(OER) system is another method to enhance learning about 

sustainability, because the Soldier will be evaluated on the 

task. Soldiers can also learn about sustainability through 

the conservation and recycling practices of the garrison 

installation.

Nonetheless, institutionalizing sustainability into the 

Army is the first step to producing a culture that embraces 

sustainability practices, but this cannot be attained unless 

changes in strategy and doctrine are examined. “As the Army 

transforms to a future force with new systems, organizational 

structures, and new doctrine to achieve full-spectrum 

operational capability, our training enablers and infrastructure, 

along with realistic and relevant training venues, must 

continue to be readily available to match the timelines we 

have established to field the future force—one comprised 

of highly trained Soldiers poised to fight new and different 

kinds of conflicts while maintaining traditional warfighting 

skills.”14 This statement represents a rallying cry for the 

Army to address sustainability as a way forward. Training, 

training venues, and infrastructure changes are but a piece of 

how sustainability can be managed within the framework of 

education.

Institutionalizing sustainability into the Army requires 

the efforts of the Army Training and Doctrine Command 
46 Engineer July-December 2008

(TRADOC). TRADOC states that it is the architect of the 

Army and that it “thinks for the Army” to meet the demands 

of a nation at war while simultaneously anticipating solutions 

to the challenges of tomorrow.15 TRADOC can integrate 

sustainability education throughout its Noncommissioned 

Officer Education System and its Officer Education System. 

The curricula associated with these systems would introduce 

sustainability through maintenance training programs, 

weapons systems training, and training environments that 

simulate combat conditions to instruct students how to use 

sustainability practices within base camps. The school 

environment itself could help teach sustainability practices. 

As an example, the United States Army Engineer School can 

educate its students in sustainability by teaching them how 

best to use the land and natural resources where operations 

and training occur, thereby minimizing damage to the 

environment while protecting the land and its resources for 

the future. Another potential mode is to use training scenarios 

that include societal and environmental drivers and variables, 

such as the impact of prolonged regional drought on social 

stability and well-being, the possible destabilization of society 

through human migration, and the preventive 

measures that could forestall adverse results. 

Sustainability could be institutionalized the 

way risk management was institutionalized into 

the Army. Risk management was introduced 

as a safety program to reduce the number of 

accidents that Soldiers experienced during 

training and military operations. It accomplished 

this aim by helping Soldiers understand how an 

accident could occur and instructing them on 

ways to minimize the probability of an accident 

or prevent it altogether. Risk management 

is the process of identifying, assessing, and 

controlling risks arising from operational factors 

and making decisions that balance risk costs 

with mission benefits.16 Army leaders integrate 

risk management into their mission planning to 

anticipate safety hazards, establish preventive 

control measures, and require annual training. 

Education on sustainability can be included in mission planning for both training 

and operations, as was the case for risk 

management. Commanders at every level can 

introduce sustainability considerations into 

their planning process to mitigate potential 

hazards, minimize destruction to the land and 

other natural resources, and reduce risks to 

animal and human life. Also, a specific annex 

can be incorporated into the operations order to 

implement and enforce sustainability measures. 

As commanders prepare their operations orders, 

they would use the sustainability annex to help 

subordinates prepare individual solutions for 

sustainability, based on their situations.

Another way to educate the force is through the afteraction review (AAR) process. The AAR can incorporate 

sustainability lessons learned from the event so that the 

participants can learn the positive and negative effects of the 

operation on the environment. Identifying these effects allows 

commanders to determine how to change their standing 

operating procedures to incorporate sustainability practices 

into future operations. 

Another avenue to educating the force regarding 

sustainability is by addressing it in the OER system. The 

evaluation requires that the commander conduct face-to-face 

counseling with subordinate officers as a way to monitor 

the subordinates’ performance. If sustainability is included 

as a feature of the OER, this will force change within the 

ranks. At a minimum, the officers and their subordinates will 

learn about sustainability and figure out ways that produce 

results. The OER system is an excellent tool for commanders 

to document innovative ideas that subordinates develop on 

sustainability. Once the ideas begin to emerge and flow up the 

chain of command, sustainability practices will be more than 

just an idea and will be truly instilled into the Army culture.

Cover of The Army Strategy for the Environment
July-December 2008 Engineer 47

Conclusion

The Army is transforming its formations to address 

current and future national security obligations. As 

the Army transforms, it should educate its Soldiers 

to incorporate sustainability practices and concepts to fulfill 

those obligations without undermining the environment 

or causing unnecessary harm to the societies it is charged 

to safeguard. Instilling sustainability into Army culture 

will require constant training, incorporating sustainability 

practices and concepts into—

The Army School System.

Mission training environments.

Installations, through development of sustainable training

areas and resident programs.

OER system. 

Taking such steps will instill the processes needed to 

educate Soldiers about their responsibility for sustainability. 

Further, promoting this training will help Soldiers in the future 

because the demands on them will be even greater as climate 

change, human migration, and burdens on dwindling natural 

resources forecast future regional conflict in places where the 

Army will be deployed to protect our national interests. Thus, 

Soldiers who are aware of these future demands, conscious 

of the critical nature of sustainability, and educated to take a 

systems approach to problem solving will “sustain the mission 

and secure the future” for the United States Army.17

Colonel Hill joined the United States Marine Corps in 1977 

and served as an automotive mechanic until 1982, when he 

joined the Marine Corps Reserves. In 1984 he joined the West 

Virginia Army National Guard, went to officer candidate school, 

and received a commission. His experience includes assignments 

with the Engineer and Military Police Branches. He served in 

Operation Iraqi Freedom as base defense commander and provost 

marshal for Camp Anaconda in Balad. In 2005, Colonel Hill 

was provost marshal during Operation Katrina after Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita devastated Louisiana and Mississippi. He is a 

graduate of the Command and General Staff Officers Course, 

Combined Arms and Services Staff School, Military Police 

Officer Advanced Course, and the Engineer Officer Basic and 

Advanced Courses. He holds a bachelor’s in military leadership 

from the University of Charleston and a master’s in adult and 

technical education from Marshall University. He is a graduate 

of the Army War College and serves with the West Virginia Army 

National Guard as Commander, 197th Regiment (Regional 

Training Institute), Camp Dawson, West Virginia.

Endnotes

1

“President’s Council on Sustainable Development: 

Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy 

Environment for the 21st Century, May 1999,” <http://

clinton4.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/index.html,> accessed 

12 December 2007.

■

■

■

■

2

Report on the Brundtland Commission, “Our Common 

Future,” published by Oxford University Press, 1987.

3

Manette Messenger, “So What IS this Thing called 

Sustainability?” Background paper for the Department of 

Defense Southeast Regional Planning and Sustainability 

Workshop, March 2007.

4

Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, page 526, <http:// 

www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf>, accessed 

26 December 2007.

5

Nina M. Serafino, “Peacekeeping and Related Stability 

Operations: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement,” Congressional Research Service-3.

6

Department of Defense Directive 3000.05, “Military 

Support for Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction 

(SSTR) Operations,” 28 November 2005, <http://www.

dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/300005p.pdf>, accessed

21 December 2007.

7

James T. Quinlivan, “Force Requirements in Stability 

Operations,” Parameters, Winter 1995, pp. 59-69.

8

United States Army Posture Statement, “Addendum K, 

Army Sustainability Strategy,” <http://www.army.mil/aps/07/

addendum_print/k.html>, accessed 5 September 2007.

9

The Army Strategy for the Environment, “Sustain the 

Mission, Secure the Future,” 1 October 2004, <http://www.

asaie.army.mil/Public/ESOH/doc/ArmyEnvStrategy.pdf>, 

accessed 10 September 2007. 

10CRS Issue Brief for Congress, “Peacekeeping and Related 

Stability Operations: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement,” 

18 May 2006, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IB94040.

pdf>, accessed 11 October 2007.

11United States Army Posture Statement, “Addendum K, 

Army Sustainability Strategy,” <http://www.army.mil/aps/07/

addendum_print/k.html>, accessed 5 September 2007.

12Kurt J. Kinnevan, Chief, Directorate of Environmental 

Integration, United States Army Engineer School, e-mail 

message to author, 20 November 2007.

13Kurt J. Kinnevan, telephone interview by author,

20 November 2007.

14Army Public Affairs, “Army Announces Comprehensive 

Strategy,” <http://www.sustainability.army.mil/function/

training_readiness.cfm>, accessed 10 September 2007.

15Training and Doctrine Commanding General

Vision Statement, <http://www.tradoc.army.mil/about.htm,> 

15 October 2007.

16Field Manual 100-14, Risk Management, 23 April 1998.

17United States Army Posture Statement, “Addendum K, 

Army Sustainability Strategy,” <http://www.army.mil/aps/07/

addendum_print/k.html>, accessed 5 September 2007.

This article is reprinted from the Summer 2008 issue of Maneuver 

Support Magazine.
48 Engineer July-December 2008

I

n October 2007, a series of wildfires began burning 

across Southern California, leaving death and destruction 

in their path. Twenty raging brush fires were fanned by 

strong winds that quickly spread to seven counties. At least 

1,500 homes were destroyed, leaving thousands homeless, 

and more than 500,000 acres of land burned from Santa 

Barbara County to the United States–Mexico border. Nine 

people died as a direct result of the fire; 85 others were injured, 

including at least 61 firefighters. More than 6,000 firefighters 

fought the blazes, aided by United States Army units, almost 

3,000 prisoners convicted of nonviolent crimes, and 60 

firefighters from the Mexican cities of Tijuana and Tecate. 

Major contributing factors to the extreme fire conditions were 

drought, hot weather, and unusually strong Santa Ana winds 

with gusts reaching 85 miles per hour. The fires had numerous 

sources.

A precise method to help locate and assist displaced 

people was needed. In response, the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) sought the expertise and 

capability of the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

Geographic Information System (GIS). The Corps had used 

its GIS expertise on several past missions, including during 

response to Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 at the World Trade 

Center. In California, the GIS maps helped FEMA identify the 

affected areas in the scorched counties and locate displaced 

people requiring assistance. The maps will also help to protect 

the state from potential safety hazards that can result from 

wildfires in the future. 

The GIS is a computer-based information system and tool 

for analyzing spatial data. It takes information from various 

sources, such as aerial photographs (pre- and postevent), 

drawings, satellite imagery, commercial data sources, and 

vector data from field sources such as fire perimeters, ignition 

points, and burn intensity data, and combines these layers of 

information in various ways as overlays to perform spatial 

analysis and produce an electronic map that depicts the results 

of that analysis. 

There are several types of GIS maps:

County and damaged structure maps

FEMA individual assistance application maps

Demographic maps

Flood plain maps

Soil burn severity maps

County and damaged structure maps identify counties 

adversely affected and damaged homes and businesses. The 

information shows FEMA where to set up Disaster Recovery 

Centers (DRCs) to enable residents to obtain FEMA assistance 

applications. Maps of the DRC locations were also created to 

direct the public to the nearest DRC. When FEMA receives 

assistance applications from residents, they contact them to 

verify the location of their damaged structure. FEMA then 

uses the Corps’s GIS maps to verify that the county they live 

in was badly burned and that structures were damaged. 

FEMA individual assistance application maps are used to 

locate where clusters of residents are submitting applications 

■

■

■

■

■

Photo courtesy of FEMA Joint Field Office
July-December 2008 Engineer 49

for FEMA assistance, where damage may have occurred, and 

where a DRC may need to be set up. 

Demographic maps locate where economically challenged individuals live who don’t have transportation to get 

to the nearest DRC. Once identified, FEMA sends a mobile 

DRC to the area. 

Flood plain maps identify areas that border rivers that are 

prone to flooding. In order for FEMA to set up temporary 

trailer parks for residents, it needs to know where flood plains 

are located in order to avoid those areas. 

Soil burn severity maps show where the wildfires burned 

the most and where there is the most soil erosion. This is 

important for FEMA to know because when fire “cooks” the 

soil, it eventually breaks it up, leaving chunks of soil that are 

like pottery. When the rainy season comes, these large pieces 

of hard earth can cause mud slides on hills, injuring people 

and damaging property. 

These GIS maps are also being used by groups other than 

FEMA. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency 

looked at the burned areas to see what environmental impacts 

had occurred, and emergency responders used 

them to identify where 

they needed to evacuate 

people. The geospatial 

information and data 

products provide disaster 

emergency managers and 

responders at all levels 

of government with information to help them

make more informed decisions, ultimately reducing the risk to life,

property, and the 

environment.

Dr. Castagna is a 

technical writer/editor 

for the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers 

New York District. She 

can be reached at 

<joanne. castagna@ 

An area of southern California that was badly burned by devastating wildfires. usace.army.mil>.

An area of southern California engulfed in flames 

from wildfires 

that made their 

way across the 

region last fall.

Photo courtesy of FEMA Joint Field Office

Photo courtesy of Chad Markin, USACE, Rock Island District
50 Engineer July-December 2008

The two-day Battle of Shiloh was fought between the 

Union and the Confederacy on Sunday and Monday, 

6 and 7 April 1862. On the first day, the Union force 

was composed of the Army of the Tennessee, commanded 

by Major General Ulysses S. Grant. On the second day, 

the Army of the Ohio, commanded by Major General Don 

Carlos Buell,1

 joined Grant’s force. Most of the roughly 

45,000 Union troops were from Regular Army units and 

included 19 infantry regiments, 5 artillery regiments, and 

6 cavalry regiments.2 The Confederate Army of Mississippi, 

under General Albert Sidney Johnston and General P.G.T. 

Beauregard, consisted of 4 corps, 16 artillery regiments, and 

6 cavalry regiments. There were also 10 legions, or combined 

arms teams,3 for a total of about 40,000 Confederate troops.4

Few of the Confederate Soldiers were as well equipped or 

battle-tested as their opponents.

Although the battle was fought over a two-day period, 

the focus of this article is on the second day, between 0700 

and 1600. The Union forces that day consisted of the 

remnants of Grant’s force from the previous day plus latearriving reinforcements led by Buell and Major General Lew 

Wallace, which brought Union totals back to about 45,000 

troops. Beauregard, who took command of the Confederate 

side when Johnston died during the first day’s fighting, had 

only the remnants of his force from the day before, totaling 

less than 30,000 troops.5

Analyzing Day Two

There is no dispute that the Army of the Tennessee 

under Grant won the Battle of Shiloh. However, 

through the lens of modern doctrine and tactics, the 

events of the battle can be scrutinized and analyzed. Most 

of the decisions made by Grant and Beauregard are clearly 

supported by current United States Army doctrine and show 

both good and bad examples of how to apply its concepts. 

Current doctrine supports Grant’s offensive tactics, 

although he not did plan properly to exploit his success and 

By Captain John T. Shelton

The Battle of The Battle ofShiloh 

Major General Ulysses S. Grant

Major General Don Carlos Buell

Each session of the Engineer Captain’s Career Course 

(ECCC) is required to write an article analyzing a historical 

battle, and the best overall professional article receives the 

Thomas Jefferson Writing Excellence Award. This article was 

judged the best article of ECCC 1-08.
July-December 2008 Engineer 51

thus allowed the Army of Mississippi to escape. The battle on 

7 April can be divided into three distinct phases:

Phase I: Grant transitions to the offense

Phase II: Beauregard retrogrades to Shiloh Church

Phase III: Beauregard orders a retreat 

This article will address the current Army doctrine that 

applies to the actions—resulting in positive and negative 

outcomes—taken by both sides during these three phases. It 

also will analyze the implementation of the doctrine.

Phase I

After the fierce fighting on 6 April, both the Union and 

Confederate Armies needed resupplies of men, food, water, 

ammunition, and artillery.6

 The Union received reinforcements 

in the early morning of 7 April, and this marked the beginning 

of Phase I. The Army of Mississippi did not receive 

reinforcements, and many of the Confederate forces had no 

command and control higher than the company or platoon 

level. Grant saw this as an opportunity to retake ground lost 

the day before and transition into an offense. Beauregard was 

not aware of Grant’s reinforcements and resupply and so did 

not act fast enough to reconsolidate his command and control. 

Beauregard still believed he was fighting an offensive battle 

against Grant. This lack of knowledge allowed Grant to seize, 

almost unopposed, two landmarks—the Hornet’s Nest and 

Peach Orchard—that had been hotly contested the previous 

day.

Doctrine states that the purpose of defensive operations 

is to “buy time, economize forces, or develop conditions 

favorable to offensive operations.”8

 Grant made this transition 

from a defensive to an offensive posture flawlessly. He used 

tactical patience to wait until the conditions were favorable to 

seize terrain that his forces had lost the day before. His scouts 

informed him that the Confederates were unable to mass any 

effects to slow his advance. Grant understood the purpose 

of the offense (which is to defeat the enemy), evaluated the 

best way to apply the characteristics of the offense,9 and used 

every one of them to secure his success:

Surprise. Grant used surprise, which in this attack was 

the most important characteristic, to keep the enemy 

from knowing he had gained additional men and supplies 

and launched a frontal assault against unprepared and 

under-equipped Confederate forces. Surprise allowed him 

to seize terrain he had lost on 6 April and to do so with 

little resistance. 

Concentration. Grant concentrated his forces and 

set the conditions to have a much larger force than the 

Confederates. 

Tempo. Grant synchronized the tempo of his forces to 

allow all subordinate commanders to attack at the same 

time and at a set speed in order to mass his effects. 

■

■

■

■

■

■

Audacity. Grant used audacity “to execute violently and 

without hesitation,” rendering any Confederate resistance 

futile since they could not apply the elements of the 

defense or consolidate their command.10 

During Phase I, the Army of the Tennessee executed a 

perfect transition from the defense to the offense. This fact is 

clearly supported by Grant’s use of the characteristics of the 

offense and his understanding of the purpose of the defense. 

Further, Grant’s choice of a frontal assault, usually the leastpreferred method of attack, produced a decisive result. 

Beauregard was unaware of the success of Grant’s attack, 

illustrating Grant’s successful use of surprise. Grant’s effective 

■

General P.G.T. Beauregard

General Albert Sydney Johnston
52 Engineer July-December 2008

use of his reconnaissance elements let him understand how 

and when to exploit Confederate weaknesses. Beauregard’s 

lack of command and control and his inability to use his 

reconnaissance assets to get situational awareness caused his 

forces to fail in Phase I.

The tactical lesson here is to always have situational 

awareness as a commander and always use reconnaissance 

assets. Beauregard demonstrated that operating on an 

outdated and inaccurate common operating picture can have 

catastrophic results. His reconnaissance assets could have 

let him know that the Union forces had been resupplied and 

repositioned. However, since he didn’t know this, Beauregard 

thought he had plenty of time to reconsolidate his forces and 

even believed he was still on the offensive. This lesson directly 

affected everything that happened during the rest of the battle.

Phase II

Beauregard started receiving reports of Grant’s success at 

about 1000 hours and now understood that he was conducting 

a failed defense. Further, his commanders were following 

orders that were 24 hours old and no longer applied to what was 

happening on the battlefield. Beauregard needed to coordinate 

his actions and prepare a defense. Confederate scouts reported 

that Grant had split his forces into three elements, each 

advancing independently but well synchronized. Beauregard 

analyzed the terrain that he still held and saw an advantage 

at Water Oak Pond, a hotly contested water feature on the 

battlefield. He decided to reconsolidate his forces and used 

some of them to stall Grant’s advances and ordered the 

rest to retrograde to Shiloh Church. This plan succeeded in 

disrupting the tempo of Grant’s advance. 

Beauregard used his knowledge of the defense to buy 

time, economize his forces, and set up conditions to resume 

offensive operations. His plan was to—

Retain decisive terrain, which in Beauregard’s mind was 

forward of Shiloh Church and up to Water Oak Pond. This 

terrain left him a sizable footprint on the Shiloh 

battlefield. 

Fix Grant’s forces using Water Oak Pond and nearby 

swamps. This would slow the tempo of the Union forces 

and perhaps desynchronize their efforts. 

Concentrate Grant’s forces by getting him to commit his 

left flank at Water Oak Pond. 

The Army of Mississippi executed defensive principles 

well, but Beauregard’s plan failed in its use of surprise. Grant 

knew where Beauregard put his forces and understood what 

the Confederate forces were being used for. Grant could clearly 

see that Beauregard was trying to execute a retrograde, “a type 

of defensive operation that involves organized movement 

away from the enemy.”11 Grant believed he had forced 

Beauregard to initiate this action, but Beauregard believed 

he had done this on his own accord, so his confidence in his 

plan was still intact. Grant recognized the Confederate force 

as a rear guard, so he acted accordingly to reestablish the 

Union tempo. Beauregard thought he had slowed the Union 

force enough to accomplish his reorganization. The biggest 

problem Beauregard had in his plan to retrograde to Shiloh 

Church was in the determination of the Confederate main 

battle area. His forces did not concentrate their efforts enough 

to slow Union advances to buy the time needed.

The tactical lesson here is that communications make or 

break an operation. This lesson came from the Confederate 

Army’s inability to employ all the aspects of a defense and 

its failed attempt to use a retrograde movement as the means 

■

■

■
July-December 2008 Engineer 53

to regain the offensive. Beauregard understood how to 

execute the retrograde and his plan was solid, but his lack of 

coordination with subordinate units cost him the ability to use 

the retrograde properly. Beauregard’s intent changed from a 

retrograde as a way to reestablish an offense to a retrograde as 

a way to withdraw. Because his intent changed in the middle 

of the battle, his forces were slow to react to his new plan. 

Beauregard knew how to do a lot of things well; he just did 

not do enough to regain the initiative and transition back to 

an offense. 

Phase III

Reports continued that Grant’s push was extremely 

successful, and Beauregard was shocked that his common 

operating picture was not accurate—again. However, 

Beauregard’s scouts reported that Grant’s men would not be 

able to pursue because Grant had stretched his lines too thin 

to maintain his tempo.12 Once again, Beauregard analyzed his 

position and decided his best option to retain combat power 

was to withdraw from Shiloh. This effort would be a lot easier 

to coordinate since the Confederate communication lines 

were no longer stretched out, and what was left of his force 

was in the vicinity of Shiloh Church. Further, the Army of 

Mississippi’s remaining artillery could cover the withdrawal. 

Beauregard positioned his rear guard in plain sight of the 

Union Army and began his withdrawal from Shiloh. Grant 

recognized what the enemy was doing and knew that by letting 

them retire from the field he had met his intent. The Union 

Army made no effort to pursue Beauregard’s withdrawal and 

set up camp in the area around Shiloh Church. This ended the 

Battle of Shiloh.

Today’s doctrine supports both Beauregard’s and Grant’s 

decisions in Phase III. However, neither the Confederate nor 

the Union leader executed their plan well. Beauregard’s plan 

never put him in a position to destroy the enemy’s ability to 

synchronize or stall his will to fight.13 As before, Beauregard 

did not have good situational awareness. It would have been 

better to execute the Confederate withdrawal from Shiloh at 

the end of Phase II, but Beauregard continued to try to retake 

the initiative. His execution was weak; he only minimally 

met the criteria for a defense and could not synchronize his 

efforts with his subordinate commanders. The Confederate 

withdrawal worked well, but this owed more to Grant’s 

weakness than to Beauregard’s plan. Beauregard used his fire 

support well, not so much by inflicting casualties but as an 

effective means to give his withdrawal support by fire. The 

coordination during the Confederate disengagement was 

strong and the only reason his rear guard was not defeated. 

But ultimately, Beauregard met his last intent—to preserve 

his combat power. 

Grant’s weakness in Phase III was based on stretching 

his supply lines too thin and exhausting his troops. If he had 

attached his resupply assets to his units in direct contact with 

the Confederates, they could have made sure those units did 

not run out of ammunition, and so could have continued their 

pursuit. Also, Grant’s infantry and cavalry moved too fast to 

integrate the Union artillery, keeping Grant from using one 

of his key battle systems. Grant did not set phase lines to 

control his tempo in Phase III, so Union troops pursued the 

Confederates until they were unable to continue. Stopping 

pursuit when they had the Confederates on the run was a 

direct result of this poor planning. Grant had the opportunity 

to destroy the Army of Mississippi but failed to do so—not 

for lack of mass but for lack of planning.

The tactical lesson learned here is at the expense of the 

Union. Failure in the combat, service, and support fight 

will stall an attack just as thoroughly as defeat by an enemy 

force. The end result of outrunning supply lines is a halt to 

the battle. When the enemy is conducting a retrograde with 

the intent to retire, it means the enemy was not defeated. In 

addition, Grant did not use his combat multiplier because his 

artillery could not keep up with his infantry and cavalry. The 

artillery could have destroyed Beauregard’s rear guard and 

laid counter-battery fire on the Confederate guns.

Summary

The history books report that Grant was satisfied with 

the results of the Battle of Shiloh, but failing to defeat 

the enemy is not acceptable in today’s Army, and it 

was not acceptable in the Civil War.

Captain Shelton was commissioned through the Army 

Reserve Officer Training Corps, served with the 36th Engineer 

Group and the 11th Engineer Battalion at Fort Benning, 

Georgia. He deployed to Iraq with the 36th Engineer Group 

in 2005. He graduated from the Engineer Captain’s Career 

Course in April.

References

1

 Jay Luvaas, Stephen Bowman, Leonard Fullenkamp, Guide 

to the Battle of Shiloh, University Press of Kansas, 1996.

2

 Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey J. Gudmens, Staff Ride Handbook 

for the Battle of Shiloh: 6-7 April 1862, Combat Studies 

Institute Press, 2005, p. 6.

3

 Ibid, p. 6.

4

 Larry J. Daniel, Shiloh: The Battle That Changed the Civil 

War, Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 1997, p. 241.

5

 Ibid, p. 241.

6

 Ibid. pp. 177-178.

7

 Ibid, p. 241.

8

 Field Manual (FM) 3-90, Tactics, 4 July 2001, p. 8-1.

9

 Ibid, p. 3-1.

10 Ibid, p. 3-1.

11 FM 3-90, p. 8-5.

12 Daniel, p. 241.

13 FM 3-90, p. 8-12. 
54 Engineer July-December 2008

Engineers are fundamentally problem solvers. Whether 

the problem is getting people to their destination or 

shaping the battlefield, odds are that an engineer can 

and will solve the problem. Engineers can usually adapt tested, 

doctrinal methods to fit a given situation. But sometimes 

tested, doctrinal methods aren’t 

enough. As the 502d Engineer 

Company learned while repairing 

a bridge near Baghdad, when 

engineers can’t adapt doctrine, 

they must pioneer it.

The problem started with 

erosion cutting away the bank of a 

river. The edges of the bank were 

coming closer, day by day, to the 

ends of the bridge. The doctrinal 

approach would have engineers 

stop the erosion of the bank or 

extend the length of the bridge so 

its ends could rest a safe distance 

away from the precarious edge. 

But halting the erosion wouldn’t 

solve the problem in this case, 

because the bridge already rested 

dangerously close to the river’s 

edge. And the bridge was already 

at its maximum safe length. The bridge company would need 

another solution. 

The Soldiers of the 502d continued to brainstorm for 

a new idea, but nearly everyone reluctantly agreed that the 

solution was going to be difficult. Because the bridge was 

By First Lieutenant Nicholas A. Soroka

The roller skate sections, fabricated from damaged bridge parts, are ready to be 

transported to their destination.
July-December 2008 Engineer 55

originally emplaced at an angle, removing the entire bridge 

and building a new one at the correct angle would solve the 

problem. This would require a lot of resources, close the 

bridge for several days, and make it difficult to resupply 

Soldiers in some combat outposts. While some people would 

have accepted this difficult plan and its corresponding risk, 

one noncommissioned officer devised a nondoctrinal solution 

that would save manpower, resources, and perhaps lives—

simply rotate the bridge. 

While the concept may seem elementary, rotating a 

90-ton, million dollar bridge is anything but simple. Any 

such attempt would be nondoctrinal, unorthodox, and 

unprecedented. In short, the 502d needed to risk pioneering 

a new technique. Members from the company’s maintenance 

platoon fabricated two pairs of enormous “roller skates” 

from damaged parts of older bridges. Sliding on these roller 

skates, both ends of the bridge could simultaneously swing 

into their new locations. But would the proposed solution 

work? While back-of-the-envelope calculations supported the 

design, no one could be sure without testing. Unfortunately, 

there wasn’t enough time for testing. Even if the proposed 

solution were sound, dozens of other factors could easily lead 

to catastrophic failure.

Arriving on site, the 502d engineers quickly established 

security, removed the bridge’s on-ramps, lifted the ends of 

the bridge, and attached the roller skates. Once the engineers 

connected the roller skates, they hooked up a system of 

winches to pull the bridge into its new position. Next came 

the moment of truth. The engineers paused and awaited the 

final command to start pulling. In a few short moments, the 

uncertainty surrounding this nondoctrinal solution would be 

settled. A loud “Pull” crackled over the radio, and the winches 

began to tighten. With an audible metallic groan, the bridge 

began to roll and rotated without a problem into its final 

position. 

The plan worked. Engineers had solved the problem. 

Because the Soldiers of the 502d couldn’t adapt old doctrine 

to solve a problem, they engineered a solution of their own. 

While some may consider this process risky, it’s ultimately 

how new doctrine starts. By designing, implementing, and 

pioneering a nondoctrinal solution, the members of the 502d 

proved themselves worthy of the title “Engineers”—problem 

solvers.

First Lieutenant Soroka is a platoon leader for the 

502d Engineer Company (Multirole Bridge), Hanau, 

Germany. He completed the Engineer Officer Basic Course 

in January 2007, and the Sapper Leader Course in February 

2008 at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. He holds a bachelor’s 

in civil engineering from the United States Military Academy 

at West Point, New York. 

Photographs by First Lieutenant Nicholas A. Soroka. 

Soldiers unpack one roller skate section that will be used to move the bridge.
56 Engineer July-December 2008

Five years into Operation Iraqi Freedom, improvised 

explosive devices (IEDs) continue to pose a significant 

threat to coalition forces, Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), 

and the Iraqi population. The United States Army has invested 

a great deal of money in fielding vehicles with significantly 

improved survivability, and this equipment has unquestionably saved countless lives in Iraq. Nevertheless, most coalition forces adjust their patrol schedules and routes to avoid 

likely IED engagement areas. This is not true for the route 

clearance teams (RCTs) that patrol the streets of Iraq every 

day. These teams, affectionately known as “Iron Claw,” continually patrol the neighborhoods and streets to find IEDs and 

keep the routes safe for travel. 

While route clearance has traditionally been a primary mission for coalition forces, the development of an Iraqi route 

clearance capability will help the transition to tactical overwatch. Across Iraq, senior coalition force leaders are aggressively moving toward putting the ISF in the lead and developing additional ISF capabilities. An independent ISF route 

clearance capability would reduce Iraqi reliance on coalition 

forces and enable coalition force brigade combat teams (BCTs) 

to expand their route clearance efforts as unit boundaries shift 

over time or to mass coalition force route clearance teams in 

remaining security problem areas.

Recently, Soldiers attached to the 4th Infantry Division 

(Mechanized) took an important first step in building a future 

ISF route clearance capability. Through partnership, training, and certification, they dedicated their time and energy to

creating an Iraqi RCT within an Iraqi National Police (NP) 

brigade. The brigade is a uniquely equipped unit that is 

responsible for securing a main arterial route in Baghdad. 

Establishing a Partnership, Sharing a Vision

Developing a close partnership with the NP brigade 

was an essential step in developing the Iraqi Iron 

Claw team. Close coordination with the brigade’s 

transition team opened the door for this relationship. The NP 

brigade commander was extremely receptive to the concept 

of developing the route clearance capability within his unit 

and training with U.S. Army engineers. The NP transition 

team served as an effective agent, negotiating numerous manning, equipping, training objective, and certification standards 

agreements with the NP brigade commander. Beginning in 

May 2008, Phoenix Iron Claw, the U.S. route clearance team, 

developed grassroots partnerships and began conducting combined patrols with the NP brigade. The NP brigade integrated 

armored security vehicles into Phoenix Iron Claw patrols and 

embedded ISF leadership in Phoenix Iron Claw command 

and control vehicles with a coalition force patrol leader and 

interpreter. 

RCT Training

By June 2008, encouraged by the grassroots partnership 

efforts and the success of combined patrols, the NP 

brigade commander agreed to establish a dedicated 

By Captain Scott F. Swilley

Iron Claw Academy: Iron Claw Academy:

Developing Route Clearance Capabilities in the Iraqi National Police

Developing Route Clearance Capabilities in the Iraqi National Police
July-December 2008 Engineer 57

RCT called Shurta. Subsequently, the U.S. Soldiers began 

earnest preparations of the Phoenix ISF Iron Claw Academy. 

Modeled after the Task Force Iron Claw Academy used to 

certify coalition force RCTs upon arrival in the Iraqi theater 

of operations, the Phoenix ISF Iron Claw Academy trained 

and certified the NP brigade’s RCT through a 10-day program 

of instruction that included individual, crew, leader, and collective training. The course outline consisted of three compounding phases: route clearance equipment training, tactics 

instruction, and practical exercises, plus a certification lane.

The U.S. Soldiers prepared training support materials in 

English and Arabic and vetted the translated training materials 

through several U.S. and Iraqi agencies for content, accuracy, 

and cultural sensitivities. The NP brigade delivered ISF vehicles a week in advance of the course start date in order to 

mount a mine roller and blower to the vehicles for additional 

counter-IED capabilities. The U.S. Soldiers certified trainers 

and rehearsed the use of translators for presentation of training materials. 

Equipment Training

When the NP brigade route 

clearance platoon arrived 

for the first day of training, 

there were many familiar faces in the 

group from the combined patrolling 

and IED awareness training conducted 

in the preceding months. Upon arrival, 

the trainees moved to the local training 

area for three days of training on the 

following equipment: 

Buffalo

Husky with ferret arm

REVA (Reliable, Effective, Versatile, and Affordable), a South 

African wheeled armored vehicle

Equipment training mirrored U.S. 

Army standards for new equipment 

training, progressing from familiarization to preventive maintenance and 

finally to driver training. The driver’s 

course included a ground-guiding lane, 

a closed half-mile course, and a serpentine course that allowed the drivers to 

better judge mine roller clearance and 

turn radius, critical skills while negotiating security checkpoints.

Tactics Instruction

As with the majority of training, the company noncommissioned officers (NCOs) took 

■

■

■

the lead and presented tactics instruction, through interpreters, 

to the students. To set conditions for effective practical exercises, the tactics instruction focused on the following:

Mission preparation for a route clearance patrol 

IED indicators

Battle drills

Vehicle recovery

Patrol formations

The classroom instruction also served two ulterior objectives: it provided a reprieve from 110-degree temperatures 

and highlighted the expertise and leadership role of United 

States Army NCOs. The opportunity to demonstrate the potential of the U.S. Army’s NCO Corps encouraged the Iraqi 

RCT officers to empower their subordinates and foster initiative within the ranks. Several of the tactics classes focused 

on troop-leading procedures and the importance of participation by all members of the team during patrol preparation. 

■

■

■

■

■

A Husky operator from the 1st National Police Brigade interrogates an inert IED 

with the ferret arm during the certification lane.
RCT patrol leaders reviewed material with U.S. instructors 

before presenting a block of instruction, so they entered the 

classroom with a solid understanding of tactics and a willingness to consider alternative patrolling techniques. The U.S. 

instructors encouraged the NP leaders to apply all available 

resources, most notably a mastery of the terrain and insight 

into enemy behaviors, to critical steps such as reconnaissance 

and surveillance.

Practical Exercises

The Iraqi RCT members exited the classroom eager for 

the opportunity to display their newfound IED defeat training. Throughout the training, they displayed 

marked improvement and their leaders willingly accepted advice. The practical exercises included an IED indicators lane, 

self-recovery of RCT vehicles, movement formations, and actions on IED battle drills.

An explosive ordnance disposal company and a weapons 

intelligence team supported the U.S. instructors and enhanced 

training during practical exercises by producing realistic training aids. Students negotiated the IED indicators lane one vehicle at a time, focusing on identifying as many indicators as 

possible. During the practical exercises, the Iraqi RCT leaders 

took over patrol preparation. The practical exercises included 

emphasis on deliberate rehearsals, to include the following:

Rock drills on sand tables

Walk-through rehearsals

Radio rehearsals

Mounted rehearsals 

Recovery operations exercises to reinforce the importance of precombat checks

Certification

The certification lane was the capstone event for the 

Phoenix ISF Iron Claw Academy. The Iraqi RCT leaders were assigned a typical main supply route clearance mission. U.S. instructors provided mock intelligence 

assessments with leading questions to provoke the tactical 

problem-solving techniques discussed during tactics instruction. The U.S. instructors evaluated the RCT patrol leader and 

his unit on the following:

Patrol preparation

Use of visual aids

Patrol briefs

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Rehearsals

Conduct of the route clearance patrol

Actions on contact

Recovery

Post-combat operations

The Iraqi RCT conducted two iterations of the certification 

lane. The first scenario focused on actions taken when an IED 

is found, while the second scenario involved a complex attack. Both iterations revealed areas that needed improvement, 

but overall the team met the standard for progression to combined route clearance operations. 

Keys to Success

With the first cycle of Iron Claw training completed 

successfully, U.S. leaders identified several keys 

to success as takeaways to support future training 

and operations. Developing partnerships and obtaining Iraqi 

buy-in to form a dedicated RCT opens the door. Training Iraqi 

forces to perform the route clearance mission does not require 

the creation of a new training methodology; using the standard eight-step training model and the existing Phoenix Iron 

Claw Academy program of instruction worked well. Emphasizing patrol preparation is just as important as resourcing the 

RCT with special counter-IED equipment. Finally, a deliberate sustainment training plan, maintenance plan, and continued combined patrolling will enhance performance as the ISF 

moves forward. Transition requires willingness, patience, and 

training for both coalition forces and the ISF. As a result of 

this training, in a few short weeks Iraqi citizens will see their 

own security forces clearing important roads and recognize 

the willingness, patience, skill, and dedication of ISF and

coalition forces in partnership together.

Captain Swilley has commanded Echo Company, 4th Battalion, 64th Armor Regiment, for two years as part of 4th 

Brigade, 3d Infantry Division. His past assignments include 

project manager, Division Engineers, 3d Infantry Division; 

operations and training (S-3) officer, 2d Battalion, 10th Infantry Regiment; training developer, United States Army Engineer School; and platoon leader, assistant S-3, and company executive officer, 16th Engineer Battalion. He holds a 

bachelor’s from Louisiana State University and masters’ in 

civil engineering and engineering management from the University of Missouri-Rolla (now Missouri University of Science 

and Technology), and is licensed as a professional engineer 

in Missouri. 

■

■

■

■

■

“Iron Claw teams continually patrol the neighborhoods and streets 

[of Iraq] to find IEDs and keep the routes safe for travel.”

58 Engineer July-December 2008
July-December 2008 Engineer 59

First there were sandbags, then came gabion baskets, and 

now a new element in field fortifications is emerging 

that could give sappers an enhanced, multifaceted 

capability for force protection. Since deploying to the Balkans 

more than 15 years ago, the Corps of Royal Engineers has 

become increasingly involved with the construction of static 

physical force protection in the form of blast walls, protective 

berms, sangars (fortified observation posts), and explosive 

ordnance disposal (EOD) protective works. We also continue 

to assist with infrastructure construction such as building 

roads, culverts, and flood protection measures. 

DefenCell is a relatively new military innovation that 

will provide additional options when undertaking all of 

these tasks. It has been successfully used in Afghanistan by 

the British Army’s 39 Engineer Regiment (Air Support) to 

construct protective berms and ground stabilization structures 

at several locations and at the Defence Explosive Ordnance 

Disposal School in Britain to improve its EOD training area. 

DefenCell is a geotextile polymer structure that has great 

strength, not just because of the textile’s properties, but 

because of the cellular form of each unit. The cells confine 

the fill material and give it such load-bearing strength that it 

can be driven on or even compacted with heavy rollers. This 

in turn enhances its ballistic protection properties and aids 

the stability of the structures. Walls of substantial heights can 

be achieved by field engineers, and DefenCell engineers can 

help in the design of even higher structures.

Afghanistan Case Study

The 39 Engineer Regiment (Air Support) began 

construction of ammunition supply points (ASPs) 

that could securely contain large amounts of ordnance 

ranging from air-dropped weapons to trip flares. Among their 

goals, the engineers sought to—

By Warrant Officer 2 Matt A. Graves
 60 Engineer July-December 2008

Eliminate the huge footprint a standard earthen berm

would require.

Reduce the logistical burden presented by a construction

of this size.

Develop a “metal-free” solution to reduce the danger of

secondary fragmentation from possible explosions.

The higher headquarters of 39 Engineer Regiment (Air 

Support), 12 Engineer Brigade, approached Terram Ltd., a 

sister company of the U.S. firm FiberwebTM, because of the 

company’s expertise in constructing geotextile cell berms 

for the oil and gas industry. Terram Ltd. provided a design 

that fulfilled all the requirements and, within four weeks of 

being contracted, manufactured the geotextile cells required 

to construct the berms for both ASPs and delivered 20 

kilometers of geotextile cells. The reduction in the logistical 

requirement over alternate systems was a huge benefit when 

supplies had to travel thousands of miles, including passage 

through the Khyber Pass. And for Soldiers and commanders 

alike, the reduction of even one vehicle in a convoy is a real 

morale booster. 

During the project, more than 16 kilometers of geotextile 

cells were laid until the required height was achieved. 

Approximately 20,000 cubic meters of sand were used to fill 

the cells, which were then compacted using plate compactors 

and heavy rollers. As the berms gained height, a crane lifted 

rollers atop the cells to allow compaction of the upper layers, 

adding to the stability and longevity of the design. A patented 

stacking system allows strong vertical walls to be constructed. 

■

■

■

This means that standard blast walls and compartments can 

be constructed, providing a realistic alternative to existing 

systems for the first time. This innovative product is emerging 

as a new generation in force protection systems that can 

provide additional capabilities or complement existing 

systems. 

Comprehensive blast tests showed superior protection and 

revealed the design’s ability to sustain damage to the outer 

cells while still retaining structural integrity overall. During 

these trials, another significant benefit of the cellular design 

was tested: its ability to sustain damage to the outer cells 

of a barrier while still retaining structural integrity overall. 

As a result of these tests, DefenCell has been specified as a 

barrier system for a number of security applications. As a 

ground stabilization product DefenCell is supplied in cells 

of two different sizes. In wet or unstable conditions, the 

cells are simply deployed, filled, and compacted to provide 

vehicle hardstand areas. Helicopter landing areas can also 

be established, with stabilizers added to the fill materials to 

prevent dust and downdraft erosion.

Additional Benefits

Akey benefit of the DefenCell system is that it is very 

lightweight, nonmetallic, and compact. The individual 

units can be easily cut to shape and size and could 

be split down and readily man-packed. The system is packed 

on standard North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 

pallets and is readily air-droppable. The geotextile polymer 

has an ultraviolet (UV)-resistant additive, and barriers can be 

DefenCell units form 

a protective barrier 

around a container.
July-December 2008 Engineer 61

painted to suit local conditions or can be specially treated to 

meet specific requirements. 

The deconstruction and disposal of temporary or 

semipermanent sites that the Corps constructed over the years 

has become a major issue recently. The large number of blast 

walls and other structures create a huge ecological problem 

and represent a vast amount of metal and other materials to 

dispose of. Because DefenCell units contain no metal, they 

are very easily dismantled and the geotextile material can be 

reused by the local population in civil engineering projects 

such as the construction of roads.

Summary

DefenCell is an innovative wall, barrier, and ground 

stabilization system that can provide a complement 

or alternative to current force protection resources 

while providing some significant additional benefits:

Reduction of logistical footprint by more than 40 percent,

which maximizes transport in-loads, reduces hazardous

convoys, and cuts costs.

Lightweight and air-droppable.

Reduction of secondary fragmentation risk.

Ease of dismantling in an environmentally sympathetic

fashion. 

Simplicity of quickly building strong, load-bearing

structures.

Durability due to built-in UV protection.

Ability to absorb damage while retaining structural

integrity.

Blast resistant.

More information on DefenCell can be found at <www.

defencell.com>. 

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Warrant Officer 2 Graves serves in the Royal Engineers 

(RE), British Army. He began his career as a combat 

engineer and has deployed to Northern Ireland, Belize, 

Cyprus, Kenya, the Falkland Islands, and South Georgia in 

the Antarctic. He has deployed twice to the Balkans as part 

of the Mine Awareness Training Team. As a bomb disposal 

officer in 33 Engineer Regiment (EOD), he conducted EOD 

operations in the United Kingdom, Sierra Leone, and Kenya. 

He was selected in 2005 as sergeant major of 37 Armoured 

Engineer Squadron in Germany and deployed to Iraq on 

Operation Telic. WO2 Graves holds a master’s in business 

administration and has completed more than 22 years service 

with the British Army. 

References and Acknowledgments

Lieutenant Colonel S. Browse, RE, Presentation to the 

Defence IQ Combat Engineering Conference, Café Royal, 

London, 31 October 2007.

Captain P. Hammett, RE, Presentation to the British 

Construction Industry Awards 2007, London, 10 October 

2007.

Joint Force Engineer, 29 (Land Support) Engineer Group, 

“Operation Herrick, Afghanistan,” Sapper Magazine, 

September 2006.

“Force Protection Engineering, Part 1–Fundamentals,” 

Military Engineering, Volume IX, Army Code No 71838, 

Ministry of Defence, January 2007.

“Field Engineering, Pamphlet No 2–Field Fortifications,” 

Military Engineering, Volume II, Army Code No: 71747, 

Ministry of Defence, November 2006.

DefenCell technical information provided by Terram Ltd 

(<www.terram.com>).

DefenCell sales information provided by J & S Franklin 

Ltd (<www.franklin.co.uk>).

An ammunition supply point is constructed from DefenCell units.
62 Engineer July-December 2008

The Joint Multinational Readiness Center (JMRC) in Hohenfels, Germany, has been 

a combat training center for the U.S. 

Army for decades. JMRC is structured and resourced primarily to train 

and validate the U.S. Army, Europe’s 

(USAREUR’s) brigade combat teams 

(BCTs). Not until February-March 

2008 had JMRC validated a functional 

engineer brigade for its mission in Operation Iraqi Freedom. With the recent 

restationing of the 130th Engineer 

Brigade to Hawaii, the 18th Engineer 

Brigade became USAREUR’s only 

engineer brigade. As part of V Corps, 

the brigade coordinates and directs the 

full range of engineer activities in support of USAREUR operations. For its 

pending mission in Iraq, the brigade 

traveled to Hohenfels and Grafenwoehr to conduct gunnery training, 

platoon- and company-level situational 

training exercises (STXs), and a brigade 

mission rehearsal exercise (MRE).

Scenario Design Challenges

The scenario design for the brigade’s MRE presented 

JMRC with numerous challenges. As a functional brigade, the 18th must be prepared to operate as a subordinate unit to a corps or division, without overall responsibility for any terrain or populace. Because of this, one of 

the most difficult challenges in designing the MRE was the 

replication of adjacent units—to include BCT and maneuver 

task force headquarters—and their area of operations for the 

18th to coordinate with and operate within. 

JMRC was also challenged by the need to replicate a command subordinate to the 18th Engineer Brigade. The battalions that were to make up the brigade’s task organization in 

Iraq were not available for the MRE. The 54th Engineer Battalion, a unit subordinate to the 18th in USAREUR, was also 

validated as part of this exercise, and JMRC replicated the 

94th Engineer Battalion (Construction Effects) to round out 

the brigade. Because replication of a brigade’s subordinate 

battalion was a first for the training center, JMRC prepared 

as follows:

Designated an engineer observer/controller (O/C) as the 

battalion operations and training (S-3) officer to plan and

execute the simulated battalion’s missions and prepare a 

steady state operational schedule or story line.

Coordinated directly with the 94th Engineer Battalion to 

ensure that the replicated headquarters directed realistic 

mission sets, problems, and issues to the engineer 

brigade.

Coordinated with the United States Army Engineer 

School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, for personnel to 

round out the replicated headquarters, because the training 

center does not have many O/Cs experienced in construction engineering. These personnel provided much-needed 

expertise in replicating the construction effects battalion 

during the exercise.

■

■

■

By Lieutenant Colonel Hank Thomsen

A route clearance team interrogates a suspected IED with a surrogate Buffalo 

mine-protected vehicle.

18th Engineer Brigade’s Mission 

Rehearsal Exercise at JMRC

18th Engineer Brigade’s Mission 

Rehearsal Exercise at JMRC 
July-December 2008 Engineer 63

Simulated the 94th Engineer Battalion during the MRE. 

This included providing a full-time liaison officer in the

18th Engineer Brigade operations center who reported, 

conducted update and shift-change briefs, planned, and 

attended various working groups. Physically adjacent to 

the higher command headquarters, the simulated 94th 

Engineer Battalion operations center produced daily 

reports, answered requests for information, and ensured a 

coherent story line to challenge the 18th Engineer 

Brigade staff.

Along with augmentation from V Corps, JMRC replicated a division headquarters as a higher command. It recreated many of the functions of a division headquarters, to 

include typical battle rhythm events and orders production. 

The portrayal of a division improvised explosive device defeat (IEDD) working group, which included representatives 

from all the division’s units, gave the 18th Engineer Brigade staff the opportunity to prepare for and participate in a 

division-level working group.

Ideally, the 18th Engineer Brigade would have conducted 

an MRE at JMRC simultaneously with a BCT. This would 

have forced the 18th to interact with a maneuver element that 

controlled terrain as the engineers conducted assured mobility 

and general engineering missions throughout the division area 

of operations. But because of deployment timelines and other 

USAREUR training events, this was not possible. To make up 

for this, JMRC simulated BCT headquarters to interact with 

the 18th Engineer Brigade headquarters and 

to populate the division operations with daily 

significant activities. Along with the brigade 

headquarters, JMRC scripted daily events 

in the Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation 

(JCATS) system that populated the 18th’s 

common operational picture. To ensure that 

the engineer brigade had a maneuver unit to 

interact with during route clearance missions 

on the ground, JMRC used an Army National 

Guard infantry company. This company was 

controlled by exercise control (EXCON) and 

the O/C team working with the 54th Engineer 

Battalion, conducting missions such as raids 

or cordon-and-search operations supported 

by the 54th’s route clearance teams.

Establishing Objectives 

and a Timeline

I

n coordination with V Corps, the 18th 

Engineer Brigade and JMRC developed 

a set of training objectives and validation tasks that guided the development of the 

exercise. The validation tasks are those tasks 

that the brigade’s senior trainer reviews upon 

completion of the exercise to ensure that the 

brigade is ready to deploy. JMRC exercise 

■ planners used these validation tasks to develop the exercise 

scenarios and brigade training missions.

Based on the unit’s deployment timeline, JMRC and the engineer brigade developed an exercise timeline. The first portion 

of the training was the leader training program (LTP) for the 

brigade staff, conducted at JMRC. This training included classes on the military decision-making process, theater-specific 

briefings, and observation of the engineer brigade planning 

process. The engineer brigade LTP culminated with the brigade’s orders briefing to subordinate battalions. The 54th Engineer Battalion then began its LTP at Grafenwoehr Training 

Area, followed closely by an STX at the platoon level, also 

conducted at Grafenwoehr. Following the platoon-level STX, 

the brigade moved to Hohenfels and executed a companylevel STX and a command post exercise for the battalion and 

brigade headquarters. 

Replicating the Environment

To properly portray the environment of the 18th 

Engineer Brigade’s upcoming deployment, JMRC 

used numerous assets in the training area, to include 

civilians on the battlefield (COB), roving traffic jams, and 

simulated IEDs. As with any brigade MRE at JMRC, the 

training area was populated with hundreds of COBs, many of 

them Arabic-speaking, who populated the towns in the training area and served as role players. Each of the towns and its 

leaders had a background or storyline that has been developed 

Opposing Force Soldiers train on replica IED construction and 

emplacement.
64 Engineer July-December 2008

over the past few years during numerous 

counterinsurgency-based training exercises.

Most of the 18th Engineer Brigade’s 

missions in the training area were based 

on route clearance. One of the many 

challenges facing units conducting route 

clearance in Iraq is the ability to perform 

their mission in the midst of mostly benign, but cumbersome, traffic. To replicate this traffic, JMRC used roving traffic jams consisting of groups of up to 30 

nontactical vehicles controlled by EXCON and designed to cause congestion 

and confusion during the route clearance 

missions. The missions for these traffic 

jams were based on the 54th Engineer 

Battalion’s route clearance schedule and were coordinated 

at the daily EXCON synchronization meeting. EXCON also 

made last-minute adjustments to the traffic jam missions with 

input from O/Cs and COBs.

Over the past few years, JMRC has developed a system 

to properly replicate IEDs. Because the 18th Engineer Brigade MRE involved units directly involved in neutralizing 

these devices, JMRC made a concerted effort to have realistic 

training IEDs on the ground. These devices consisted of initiation systems, training munitions or explosive devices, and 

effects simulators. The devices were based on systems found 

in the current theater of operations and were emplaced and 

controlled by Opposing Force Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 

4th Infantry Regiment, and supervised by JMRC fire markers, 

the Dragons.

Brigade Missions During the MRE

The 18th Engineer Brigade focused on two main types 

of missions during their MRE—assured mobility 

missions in the form of route clearance and numerous 

general engineering missions. 

Assured Mobility

The brigade was tasked by the division to ensure that priority supply routes were routinely cleared by its subordinate 

unit, the 54th Engineer Battalion. The brigade also received 

orders to support named operations with route clearance assets. Before executing route clearance missions, the engineer 

brigade and battalion had to coordinate boundary crossings 

and any needed support with the appropriate maneuver units, 

such as quick reaction force, recovery, or air support units. 

JMRC replicated these maneuver brigade and battalion headquarters with the task force analyst staff.

JMRC provided replicated maneuver units as terrain 

owners, not only to feed significant actions and operational 

information to the 18th Engineer Brigade but also to act as 

response cells to route clearance teams moving throughout 

the area of operations. Platoon leaders coordinated with landowning units for cross-boundary coordination and for quick 

reaction force and maintenance recovery assets when overwhelmed by enemy activity. This forced the leader on the 

ground to initiate contact with the maneuver unit and conduct 

on-site linkup.

General Engineering

To stimulate the brigade’s construction planning, the division tasked the brigade to plan numerous construction projects. These projects included the design of a joint security 

site, a forward operating base upgrade, and a short takeoff and 

landing airstrip for unmanned aircraft system operations. The 

airstrip design was directed during the brigade’s LTP, and the 

planning carried through the entire MRE. It culminated in a 

back-brief to the division commander.

Gleaning the Lessons Learned

I

n the War on Terrorism, JMRC must not only train BCTs 

but also functional brigades before their deployments to 

Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. The Army’s combat training centers must be flexible 

in their preparation for any training exercise. The use of all 

available assets, to include contact with deployed engineer 

battalions and brigades, support from V Corps engineers, the 

Engineer School, and the joint IEDD organization ensured 

that the 18th Engineer Brigade received a quality training 

event in preparation for deployment. 

Lieutenant Colonel Thomsen is currently serving as the 

chief of engineer doctrine at the United States Army Maneuver 

Support Center, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. His past assignments include service as an engineer observer-con­troller 

at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center in Ho­henfels, Germany, duties with engineer battalions in Germany and at Fort 

Bragg, North Carolina, and as an assistant professor in the 

Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering at the United 

States Mili­tary Academy (USMA) at West Point, New York.

A Soldier from the 18th Engineer Brigade conducts a survey of the JMRC 

short takeoff and landing strip.
July-December 2008 Engineer 65

Throughout the 20th and into the 21st century, the 

United States Army has been involved with 

multinational—or combined—operations. The 

majority of time during deployments is spent not in support 

of kinetic operations, but rather stability operations and 

civil support operations, such as those in Bosnia, Kosovo, 

Afghanistan, and Iraq. All are examples of combined operations 

with a relatively short warfighting period (less than a year), 

followed by longer periods of stability operations. These may 

last several years—or even decades—in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

For some of our allies—including most of our North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) partners—it is politically 

easier to support these stability operations than traditional 

warfighting. These combined stabilization missions, which 

tend to need more engineer effort, mean that more and more 

engineer units will operate in a combined environment. This 

article describes how NATO headquarters view engineers, 

specifically noting the differences in organization and function 

Lieutenant Colonel David L. Knellinger

inside the headquarters itself. It also describes lessons learned 

through a tour of the International Security Assistance Force 

(ISAF) headquarters and a tour with the NATO Allied Rapid 

Reaction Corps (ARRC) headquarters.

Organization of a NATO Engineer Branch

Most NATO engineer branches are divided into four 

sections: 

Plans

Operations

Infrastructure

Intelligence

For the purpose of this article, the term “NATO 

headquarters” is used to describe headquarters for joint 

■

■

■

A Quick 

Introduction 

to NATO 

Engineering

■ Plans

A NATO convoy patrols in Afghanistan.
66 Engineer July-December 2008

forces, a land component, or a corps. 

Because headquarters at division and 

lower levels are nationally pure, they 

conduct engineer planning according to 

their own national structures. 

Plans and Operations Sections

The plans and operations sections 

in a NATO headquarters are similar to 

their U.S. counterparts. Their mission 

is to support the planning process in 

the headquarters. However, delivering 

against this mission is more challenging 

than in a U.S. headquarters. There 

are numerous engineer units with 

different structures and capabilities 

in each country’s army. Having a true 

understanding of what engineering 

capability is present inside each nation’s 

formations is a precise and demanding 

job. This process has become harder since 

deployments now include Partnership for 

Peace (PfP) countries. The engineer plans 

and operations sections must now know the equipment and 

capabilities of both NATO and former Warsaw Pact nations 

to accurately describe engineer capabilities and efforts to the 

higher commander. 

When writing orders, the engineer plans section must 

focus subordinate engineer effort as precisely as possible, 

but not to the point of limiting the ability of subordinate 

engineer formations to operate on the battlefield. A limiting 

order will deny the subordinate engineer commanders the 

ability to conduct their missions according to their own 

national priorities. This conflict can lead to a stalemate in 

engineer activity or to engineer efforts dedicated exclusively 

to national missions rather than attempts to achieve the higher 

commander’s desired effects. 

Infrastructure Section

The engineer infrastructure section has a very limited 

range in its support of NATO infrastructure. The country that 

has responsibility for a particular area of operations also has 

responsibility for building the infrastructure to support that 

mission; costs lie where they fall. Therefore, countries will 

build what they think they need, but to their own national 

standards. There are no NATO standards for individual 

buildings or bases. NATO infrastructure engineers only have 

proponency for a few common-use items. Airfield runways 

and the NATO headquarters itself are the primary examples 

of items that fall into this section’s purview. This limits the 

scope and capabilities of the infrastructure branch and makes 

it dependent upon outside agencies such as the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers for technical advice and quality 

control.

Intelligence Section

The engineer intelligence section’s mission depends on the 

commander’s main effort. The section’s original mission is 

to understand the enemy engineer’s capability and doctrine. 

With that mission, it would coordinate directly with the allsource cell in the corps intelligence (G-2) section, providing 

subject matter expertise to the G-2 section’s analysis of the 

enemy. With the ending of the Cold War, the branch has a 

more varied mission set. Now the branch may be responsible 

for supporting improvised explosive device defeat (IEDD), 

analyzing host nation infrastructure for intelligence 

preparation of the battlefield, or monitoring current and 

future planned reconstruction and development projects. All 

of these missions require the engineer intelligence officer to 

coordinate with numerous branches in the headquarters. 

Geographic Section

I

t is important to note that the geographic section was 

not mentioned as being part of the engineer branch. 

This section is located in the G-2 section in most NATO 

headquarters. While this organization helps the intelligence 

community with its mission, it limits the ability of the 

engineer branch to maintain positive control of all engineers 

in the headquarters. 

Engineer Branch Within the Headquarters

Subordinate formations must understand the true 

abilities of a NATO headquarters to support engineer 

operations throughout the theater. The engineer branch 

in the typical headquarters is limited in both personnel and 

The multinational engineer brigade improves a road outside Kabul.
July-December 2008 Engineer 67

location. Subordinate formations must note these constraints 

and tailor their requests to the engineer branch. 

In most cases, the engineer branch is part of a larger 

logistics branch and is controlled by the Deputy Chief of 

Staff for Combat Service Support (DCOS CSS). This is 

different from a U.S. headquarters, where the engineer 

branch is numbered—G-7—and works directly for the chief 

of staff. (In NATO, G-7 designates training.) In addition, the 

headquarters plans and operations branches will not have 

dedicated engineers. Any engineer analysis or input required 

for orders has to come from the engineer branch itself. This is 

different from U.S. engineer manning, which has a separate 

engineer section in the plans and operations (G-3) branch.

Where the engineer branch is located in the headquarters 

limits its scope. While the plans and operations sections should 

be concerned with all aspects of engineers on the battlefield, 

they may be limited by their DCOS CSS to looking only at 

sustainability and infrastructure operations. The DCOS CSS 

also may limit the scope of work for the intelligence and 

infrastructure sections to looking at sustainment issues, rather 

than engineer effects across the entire battlefield. 

Within the headquarters, NATO engineers must always be 

proactive in communicating with other branches, no matter 

where the engineers are in the headquarters. Specifically, 

the engineer branch must maintain constant liaison with the 

headquarters plans and operations sections, or the engineer 

effort can become unsynchronized with the maneuver 

efforts. 

Lessons Learned

Language and doctrinal terms must be used precisely 

in a NATO headquarters. Within the engineer 

branch of the ARRC, there were assigned members 

from six different nations, speaking five languages. Across 

the ARRC, there were members from 16 different nations. 

Precise phrasing of orders and correct use of doctrinal terms 

are mandatory to ensure that the mission is even understood, 

much less accomplished. While a person may take additional 

measures to ensure that a product is understood by a person 

who does not speak English as a first language, there is also a 

considerable gap in language between American and British 

personnel. You may feel comfortable with using idioms with 

British (or Canadian) individuals, but your meanings or 

intent may be significantly distorted. When in doubt, ask for 

feedback for all correspondence. 

A corollary to this lesson is refusal to discount an 

individual’s capability if you do not initially understand 

them due to a language difference. This dovetails with the 

lesson that you cannot walk into a multinational headquarters 

with any cultural biases or preconceived notions about the 

capabilities of a particular country’s armed forces. All 

armies have good and bad individuals, so all-encompassing 

statements about groups of people are rarely accurate. Once 

you are assigned to the unit, you must make the time to talk to 

all individuals to understand their strengths and weaknesses. 

Failure to understand your surroundings may cause you to 

discount a potential resource. 

Within NATO, there are preconceived notions about the 

United States Army. The size and funding of our Army are 

well known and often discussed. Also known are U.S. policies, 

to include our positions concerning Afghanistan and Iraq, and 

our refusal to sign the Ottawa Land Mine Treaty. All of these 

lead to certain perceptions concerning both the United States 

and the members of its armed forces. Individuals must work 

through these perceptions to succeed in their jobs.

Communicating with nongovernmental organizations 

(NGOs) and the international community (IC) during deployments is essential during stabilization operations. These 

agencies are the principle developers in the nations where we 

operate. Military security and reconstruction efforts and NGO/

IC development projects must be synchronized to create longterm stabilization effects. Engineers, in conjunction with the 

civil-military cooperation section, must create and maintain 

close relationships with these agencies. Specific information 

must include— 

Goals and objectives for particular programs.

Limitations and flexibility of funding.

Locations of current and planned projects.

Not understanding the development situation in the area of 

operations limits the abilities of engineers and the commanders 

we work for.

Conclusion

Engineer branches in a NATO headquarters are 

configured differently from those in U.S. headquarters. 

They are limited in capability and reach compared 

to American engineers. All engineers who will work in a 

NATO environment must understand the capabilities and 

limitations of these branches. There are also some key lessons 

that engineers must understand before working in a NATO 

environment. These include precise phrasing of orders and 

correct use of doctrinal terms, the rejection of cultural bias, 

and understanding of perceptions of the United States among 

NATO personnel. Finally, engineers working in a deployed 

environment must understand the whole stabilization environment in order to create long-lasting effects. 

Lieutenant Colonel Knellinger is the Engineer Branch plans 

officer for the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps in Rheindahlen, 

Germany. He has served as the Afghan Development Officer 

for the International Security Assistance Force IX in Kabul, 

Afghanistan. Before that, he served in the 1st Infantry Division 

as the operations and training officer of the Engineer Brigade 

and executive officer of the 82d Engineer Battalion during 

Operation Iraqi Freedom. He holds a bachelor’s in systems 

engineering from West Point and a master’s in operations 

research from Georgia Institute of Technology. 

■

■

■
68 Engineer July-December 2008

Although the topographical engineers only served 

the United States Army as a separate branch for a 

relatively short period of time, their accomplishments 

were considerable. They achieved significant geographic 

and scientific discoveries, broadened our knowledge of 

unexplored areas, and contributed to the nation’s desire 

to achieve its Manifest Destiny. Their wartime surveying 

techniques provided the most up-to-date and accurate maps, 

and during periods of peace they labored extensively on civil 

works projects authorized by Congress. This article examines 

the origins and the significant roles of the topographical 

engineers in the early 19th century and many of the important 

officers and their accomplishments, and it will end with their 

service during the Civil War.

Origins

Unlike the Corps of Engineers, the topogs, as they 

were usually known, lacked a central office or branch 

as a separate corps for much of their existence. For 

example, in the first quarter of the 19th century, the War 

Department generally assigned them as individual staff 

officers to the two military departments.1

During the War of Independence, at least three men had 

performed topographical and geographical duties for the 

Continental Army. Topogs were first appointed officially 

during the War of 1812. An act of Congress on 2 March

1813 authorized the appointment, as part of the general 

staff, of eight topogs with the brevet rank, pay, and 

emoluments of majors of cavalry and eight assistants 

with the brevet rank, pay, and emoluments of captains 

of infantry. As prescribed in the later 1841 regulations, 

the duties of the topogs “shall consist, in surveys for 

the defense of the frontier, inland and the Atlantic, and 

of positions for fortifications; in reconnoissances [sic] 

of the country through which an army has to pass, or in 

which it has to operate; in the examination of all routes of 

communication by land or by water, both for supplies and 

military movements; in the construction of military roads 

and permanent bridges connected with them and, in the 

absence of an officer or officers of the Corps of Engineers, 

of military bridges, and of field-works, for the defense 

of encampments, fords, ferries and bridges. For which 

purposes, officers of the Corps of Topographical Engineers 

shall always accompany armies in the field.”2

By Mr. Gustav Person

Photograph by James Gibson (Library of Congress)

Past in Review
July-December 2008 Engineer 69

The topogs were disbanded in 1815 by the act of

3 March that reduced most of the Army. In spite of the 1815 

housecleaning, some continuity was maintained as two of the 

topographers, Majors John Anderson and Isaac Roberdeau 

were kept on active duty to complete surveys of the northern 

frontier and Lake Champlain. The following year, topogs 

were again authorized to assist the Board of Engineers for 

Fortifications. In 1818, the regulations assigned them fully 

to the Engineer Department, along with the United States 

Military Academy at West Point and the Board of Engineers 

for Fortifications, and made them subject to the orders of 

its chief. Thereafter, a few topogs usually found themselves 

assigned to fortifications work. In August, a further regulation 

of the War Department established a Topographical Bureau 

in the Engineer Department. Located in Washington, D.C., 

the Bureau’s main duties consisted of housekeeping tasks but 

not control over programs or personnel. The Bureau collected 

and preserved the specimens brought back by scientific 

expeditions, compiled maps, and stored and cared for the 

topogs’ survey instruments.3

The partnership between officers of the Corps of Engineers 

and the topographers was uneasy. The competition for work 

and influence between the engineer and topographical officers 

resulted in substantial bitterness and tension. An additional 

reason for the animosity was that regular engineer officers 

were chosen from the top ranks of graduating West Point 

classes; topographical engineers were normally chosen from 

the second rank or from civilian life.4

Civil Works

By 1824, the importance of waterways, canals, roads, 

and bridges in the young nation was clear. These were 

the paths of commerce and westward expansion. On 

30 April 1824, Congress passed the General Survey Act, 

which sought “to procure the necessary surveys, plans, and 

estimates upon the subject of roads and canals.” It authorized 

the president to direct work on routes considered of national 

importance for commercial, military, or postal service 

purposes. Congress provided $30,000 to cover expenses. To 

carry out the surveys, the president was authorized to hire 

additional civil engineers to augment the topogs. A further 

act on 24 May appropriated $75,000 to improve navigation 

on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. Within a week, President 

James Monroe appointed a Board of Engineers for Internal 

Improvements to administer the General Survey Act. By 

the end of 1824, all ten topogs had been assigned to internal 

improvement projects. During 1826, Major Stephen H. 

Long supervised the construction of a wing dam on the Ohio 

River, as well as supervised commercially developed steampowered snagboats to clear the river of hazardous limbs 

and debris to improve navigation. Long had graduated from 

Dartmouth College in 1809. He joined the topogs in 1816

and taught mathematics at West Point for two years. Thereafter, he had a wide-ranging career as an explorer, railroad 

and river engineer, and inventor. His duties at this time also 

involved ensuring the navigability of the Mississippi River. 

By 1830, topogs led 10 of the 13 surveys for canals, roads, 

and railroads, while civilians headed the other three.5

Meanwhile, the Engineer Corps officers began to shoulder 

the major tasks of designing and building the fortifications 

that would guard the eastern seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico. 

The topogs actually transferred to the Corps of Engineers all 

their plans and drawings of fortifications.

Throughout the 1830s, the topogs carried out internal 

improvements to the country, both governmental and private. 

After surveys had been completed, all governmental projects 

were carried out on contracts superintended by the Corps of 

Engineers and the Quartermaster Department. Major Long 

gained a reputation as a railroad engineer during this time 

and was employed on such projects in New England and the 

South. Upon the reestablishment of the United States Coast 

Survey as part of the Treasury Department in 1836, the topogs 

again became associated with this work. Thereafter, until 

1863, one or two officers were always assigned to this duty.

Beginning in 1834, the topogs were employed with the 

construction of lighthouses. These were turned over to the 

Treasury Department for administration upon their completion. 

When the United States Lighthouse Board was established in 

1852, two topogs were appointed as members.6

Colonel Stephen H. Long, last Chief of Topographic Engineers, 1861-1863 (Office of History, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers)
70 Engineer July-December 2008

In January 1829, Lieutenant Colonel Isaac Roberdeau 

suddenly died and, after some deliberation, Major John J. Abert 

took over as the head of the Topographical Bureau. During 

the following year, he succeeded in gaining representation on 

the Board of Engineers for Internal Improvements; however, 

the Secretary of War abolished that board in 1831.7

Abert had graduated from West Point in 1811, but resigned 

from the Army to become a lawyer. He reentered the service 

in 1814 as a private soldier in the District of Columbia 

Militia and fought in the Battle of Bladensburg in August 

of that year. He became a topog in November and served 

until his retirement in 1861. Abert recognized that he needed 

immediate help. His two additional sources of assistance 

each year were 20 to 30 officers from other branches of the 

Army and 10 to 15 civilian engineers. He also began work 

to establish a separate Corps of Topographical Engineers, a 

project that would take almost ten years. Meanwhile, Abert 

began to consolidate and increase his responsibilities. For 

example, up until 1836 the Corps of Engineers had handled 

all river and harbor construction projects, but in that year the 

War Department transferred several Great Lakes and Lake 

Champlain projects to the Topographical Bureau.8

With so many plans for the future, and his officers 

thoroughly engaged in a variety of civil projects, Abert was 

unprepared to meet the cartographic needs of the Army 

during the Second Seminole War. The first war in 1818 had 

only required the assistance of one of the Army’s 

ten topogs. The second war in 1836 placed a much 

greater demand on them. The lack of data relating 

to Florida seriously impeded operations against the 

Seminoles who sought refuge in the Everglades. By 

the end of that year, eight topogs—diverted from civil 

works projects—were in the field with various forces, 

performing reconnaissance, collecting topographical 

information, and drawing maps. Topographers later 

stayed in Florida through the 1840s, building and 

maintaining roads, as well as collecting data, making 

surveys, and updating maps.9

Throughout the 1830s, Abert continued to urge 

the formation of a Corps of Topographical Engineers. 

He based his arguments on the solid premise that the 

work of the topogs was vital to the country’s military 

security and of great benefit to its economic progress. 

He pointed out that this move would be less expensive 

than the continual hiring of civil engineers to perform 

the work that had been too extensive for the few topogs. 

He also noted that efficiency would be promoted by 

ending the practice of detailing line officers, for much 

time had to be spent in training them—usually two 

years. Abert’s efforts were energetically supported by 

Secretaries of War Lewis Cass and Joel R. Poinsett 

and resulted in the organization of the Corps on 5 July 

1838. A provision was included to increase the size of 

the new organization to consist of one colonel (Abert), 

one lieutenant colonel, four majors, ten captains, ten 

first lieutenants, and ten second lieutenants—a total of 36 

officers. As before, no enlisted personnel were assigned to 

the topogs. In a further move, Secretary Poinsett ordered—on 

1 August 1838—the assignment to the topogs of “all new 

works of improvement, not of a military character, [and] not 

connected with the fortifications.” Therefore, between 1838 

and 1841, the Engineer Department transferred more than

70 civil works projects to the topogs. Chief among those 

projects was the construction by Major Long of a number of 

inland Marine Hospital Service facilities around the country 

for disabled seamen.10

Western Expansion

During the late 1830s and 1840s, a number of topogs 

conducted widespread explorations of the West. 

Beginning in 1838, John C. Fremont, a newly 

appointed second lieutenant (but not a West Pointer), 

conducted a reconnaissance of the Upper Mississippi and 

Missouri Rivers. Fremont explored the Oregon Trail to 

the Columbia River and California in 1842-45. His reports 

became guidebooks for the many emigrants flowing toward 

the new lands. Upon his third and last expedition for the 

government, he detached Lieutenants James W. Abert, the 

colonel’s son, and William G. Peck—in August 1845 at 

Bent’s Fort on the Arkansas River—to survey the Canadian 

and Washita Rivers. In the same year, Lieutenant William B. 

Colonel John J. Abert, Chief of Topographic Engineers, 1838-

1861, Engraving by J.C. Buttre (Office of History, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers)
July-December 2008 Engineer 71

Franklin accompanied Colonel Stephen W. Kearney’s military 

expedition along the Oregon Trail. On his march to Santa Fe 

and San Diego in 1846, Kearney’s route was sketched and 

described by Lieutenants William H. Emory and William H. 

Warner.11

 In 1846-48, many of the topogs were withdrawn from civil 

projects to participate in the war with Mexico. Two-thirds 

of the 36 men of the Corps served in the field with various 

tactical commands, independent of the bureau. In California, 

Fremont became involved in the Bear Flag revolt and the 

overthrow of Mexican rule. Captain Joseph E. Johnston 

accepted a promotion to lieutenant colonel and became 

second in command of the Regiment of Voltigeurs and Foot 

Riflemen, a new unit of mixed cavalry and infantry. Captain 

George Hughes became military governor of the area around 

Jalapa and Perote, northwest of Vera Cruz, with Emory as 

his lieutenant governor. Major Long built steamships for the 

Quartermaster Department in Texas. Topogs played important 

roles in all the major battles along the road to Mexico City, 

engaged in reconnaissance, scouting, and combat operations. 

Throughout the war, the majority of the topogs kept their 

technical lines of communication open to the Bureau and 

Colonel Abert. He had reason to speak proudly of his officers. 

The topogs, he said, showed “the versatility of talent in the 

Corps and its ability to fulfill any military duties which it may 

be found necessary or proper to assign to it.”12

The acquisition of the vast Southwest from Mexico, as a 

result of the war, and the settlement of the Oregon controversy 

with Britain, opened up the Far West for further exploration 

by the topogs and the undertaking of numerous boundary 

surveys. Before and after 1853, Captain Emory successfully 

surveyed the difficult and complex boundary of the Gadsden 

Purchase separating Mexico and the Southwest. The creation 

of new states and territories provided further boundary work 

for the topogs. For several years after 1853, Lieutenant 

Gouverneur K. Warren and other topogs were chiefly engaged 

in surveys of four routes for railroads from the Mississippi to 

the Pacific coast. As part of this work, Warren actually went 

on three expeditions to the northern plains during 1855-57. 

Unfortunately, Secretary of War Jefferson Davis later took the 

Pacific Railroad surveys from Abert’s control and placed them 

under a new Office of Exploration and Survey that reported 

directly to him. Although these explorations demonstrated the 

practicability of spanning the continent with railroads along 

various routes, none was completed until after the Civil War.13

During the two decades prior to the 1850s, the topogs 

had flourished. They had achieved independence from the 

Engineer Department; acquired an elite corps of 40 capable, 

experienced, and dedicated officers; created and preserved an 

invaluable collection of maps, charts, and reports; expanded 

its range of duties and activities; established a number of 

field offices; and appeared capable of handling the kind of 

engineering tasks that the President, Congress, or the War 

Department might assign to it. During the 1850s, however, the 

Corps declined. It lost the services of several of its best officers, 

and the others were overworked. It lost completely, or in part, 

some of its most important functions, including lighthouse 

construction. Its prestige diminished, and favoritism and 

The staff of Topographic Engineers, Headquarters, Army of the Cumberland
72 Engineer July-December 2008

intrigue replaced purposefulness and direction. The decline 

began slowly after 1850, but picked up speed as the decade 

progressed. By 1861, the Corps was foundering badly.14

Yet, during this period, the Corps achieved some 

remarkable results. On and off for the entire decade of the 

1850s, Captain Andrew A. Humphreys, assisted by Lieutenant 

Henry L. Abbot, conducted a major hydrographic study of 

the Mississippi River Delta. A chief objective was the best 

means of securing a wide navigation channel at the river’s 

mouth. Their 1861, 500-page report entitled, “Report upon 

the Physics and Hydraulics of the Mississippi River,” and 

later translated into a number of foreign languages, is still 

regarded as a model scientific study. 

Some 6,000 miles of Great Lakes shoreline required 

surveying and exploration. The Great Lakes Survey 

had actually started in 1823. From 1841-60, Congress 

appropriated a total of $640,000 for the survey. Major James 

Graham and Captain George G. Meade were the chief topogs 

engaged in these duties throughout the 1850s. Despite those 

successes, other science-oriented federal agencies were being 

established, and they began to assume some of the duties 

of the topogs. The existence of the Smithsonian Institution, 

the Naval Observatory, the Office of the United States Coast 

Survey, and the Pacific Wagon Road Office in the Department 

of the Interior reduced the prestige of the topogs from the 

levels prevalent in the previous decades.15

Civil War

Colonel Abert’s leadership abilities had declined with 

age and failing health. In 1861, just three days before 

the firing on Fort Sumter, the 73-year-old colonel 

was involuntarily retired because of physical disability. He 

was temporarily succeeded by Lieutenant Colonel Hartman 

Bache, and then by Colonel Stephen Long, himself a 

septuagenarian. Long would only serve as chief for less than 

one year, and a good part of that time was spent on leave. 

He has been described by historian Garry D. Ryan as “old, 

tired, uninspiring, and uninterested.” With the coming of war, 

the few civil works under the direction of the topogs were 

suspended. Only the Great Lakes Survey survived the war.16

In two acts of Congress passed on 3 and 6 August 1861, 

the Corps of Engineers and the topogs were each authorized 

an additional 12 officers. From a total of 45 officers at the 

beginning of 1861, the topogs were reduced a year later to 28 

as a result of seven officers resigning to join the Confederacy, 

four forced retirements, and others who accepted senior 

promotions in the volunteer forces. The War Department 

also gradually assigned the remaining topogs to duties that 

placed them under the directions of some authority other than 

the chief of the Corps. Twenty-four topogs were eventually 

promoted to general officer rank, an impressive number 

indeed. Four others lost their lives during the struggle.17

The question of rank was of particular importance to both 

Corps. The members simply held grades too low to serve 

efficiently in the field. Rarely did anyone above the rank of 

major serve as an engineer in the field; most were lieutenants 

and captains. Because they were prevented from accepting 

regimental volunteer commissions at the beginning of the war, 

these officers were frustrated that they, considered the elite of 

the army, were not sharing in the opportunities and benefits of 

wartime expansion. It is not surprising that those who could 

quickly accepted promotions in the volunteer forces outside 

their own Corps.18

The topogs were also authorized to organize a company 

of enlisted men. In 1845, as tensions with Mexico mounted, 

Abert had sought authorization to raise a company of 100 

men to assist in making maps and surveys. Congress ignored 

his request, so the topogs had to find their own assistants who 

were mainly civilians. In September 1861, two lieutenants 

were ordered to Boston to begin recruiting duties. This effort 

was notably unsuccessful. The Corps lacked a central depot, 

officers for instruction, and experienced sergeants. It also 

had to compete with volunteer units. Finally, since only a 

handful of recruits had come forward, these men were later 

transferred to the Corps of Engineers. The topogs never did 

field a company.19

By May 1862, the topogs had sent 24 of their remaining 

30 officers to the war on active field duty. The relationship 

of these officers to the various headquarters was not entirely 

clear. During the Peninsula Campaign, the chief engineer of the 

Army of the Potomac diverted members of the topographical 

engineer staff to ordinary engineer duties, and one member, 

Lieutenant Henry Abbot, was assigned as his personal aide. 

During the later Atlanta Campaign, the chief topog of the 

Army of the Cumberland discovered that two of the three 

Army corps commanders had countermanded his instructions 

and were refusing to allow their topographical officers to pass 

on information to Army headquarters.20

In the Western Theater at the beginning of the war, the 

armies operated with few resources. Only two topogs were 

available to map the entire region from the Appalachians to 

the Trans-Mississippi. Yet, the experience of the Army of the 

Cumberland was quite notable. In November 1862, Major 

General William S. Rosecrans immediately ordered the 

expansion of the topog staffs at brigade, division, and corps 

headquarters. The information, compiled and supplemented 

at each echelon, would travel up the chain of command to 

the topographical office at army headquarters, where it was 

turned into finished maps and published. “Skeleton” maps 

were continually updated, and this operation developed into a 

high state of efficiency. 

Among the most important advances made during the 

war were the techniques of map reproduction. Before 1861, 

the Topographical Bureau at the War Department possessed 

no presses of its own and was compelled to use commercial 

printers. This practice continued during the war. During 1864, 

for example, 20,938 commercial maps sheets were issued to 

the armies. The printing presses of the Coast Survey were also 

used to supply 42,000 sheets in 1862 alone. In the field, armies 
July-December 2008 Engineer 73

organized their own lithographic press operations to publish 

maps. Photography was also applied to map reproduction 

with excellent results. The most effective topographical 

section in the field was that of the Army of the Cumberland. 

Captain William Merrill took an inefficient section and 

boosted its productivity. He obtained lithographic presses and 

cameras and staffed the section with 38 draftsmen, printers, 

and photographers under a volunteer officer, Captain William 

Margedant. Captain Margedant had invented a new technique 

of rapid map reproduction using black tracing paper set over 

special photographic paper and exposed directly to sunlight. 

Using all these reproduction techniques, the topographical

section of that Army followed closely behind the front lines in 

Georgia in 1864, printing map after map. During the Atlanta 

Campaign, the section issued at least 4,000 campaign maps. 

In July alone, the section published more than 1,000 sheets of 

14 different maps.21

The Corps of Topographical Engineers remained a 

separate branch of the Army until 1863, primarily because 

of the abilities of its former chief, Colonel Abert. However, 

the attempt to abolish the Corps and the Topographical 

Bureau went back to Secretary of War Davis’ report of 

December 1854 in which he asserted his conviction that the 

continuation of a separate Corps of Topographical Engineers

was “inexpedient.” In 1861, the Chief of Engineers, Colonel 

Joseph G. Totten, opposed the move, although a number of 

junior officers of both Corps favored an amalgamation of the 

two organizations. Colonel Long, however, made no attempt 

to stop it. By 1863, the exigencies of war had largely broken 

down the artificial barriers that separated the duties of the two 

Corps. Younger topogs, as well as engineers, were now engaged 

in the construction of bridges, blockhouses, entrenchments, 

and other permanent works. They also harbored a common 

grievance against the War Department’s promotion policies. 

Major General George McClellan, himself a former engineer 

officer, sent a petition to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton 

recommending the merger in June 1862. Congress considered 

the resulting bill during the following months, with a number 

of changes made to the original proposal. On 2 March 1863, 

the Senate approved the bill by a 26 to 10 vote. The House 

accepted the Senate’s amendments with little argument, and 

the bill became law on the following day. The unification of 

the two Corps, announced to the Army in War Department 

General Orders No. 73, dated 24 March 1863, was finally 

completed in fact as well as law on 8 August 1866, with the 

appointment of Andrew A. Humphreys, a former topographical 

engineer, as Chief of Engineers.22

Summary

For nearly two decades, the topographical engineers had 

functioned as a major scientific agency of the federal 

government. At a time when the Corps of Engineers 

was primarily involved in the coastal fortifications program, 

the topogs led the way in exploration, internal development, 

and other civil works. It was only declining fortunes and 

forces beyond their control that brought the extinction of the 

Corps of Topographical Engineers as a distinct branch of the 

Army. Their services within the Corps of Engineers, however, 

continue to this day.

Mr. Person is the installation historian at Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia. He retired from the New York State Division of 

Parole after 30 years of service and is a retired lieutenant 

colonel from the New York Army National Guard. He holds 

a master’s in history from Queens College, City University 

of New York.

Endnotes

1

 Adrian George Traas, From the Golden Gate to Mexico City: The U.S. 

Army Topographical Engineers in the Mexican War, 1846-1848, Office of 

History, Corps of Engineers and Center of Military History, Washington, 

D.C., 1993, pp. 4-11.

2

 Henry P. Beers, “A History of the U.S. Topographical Engineers, 1813-

1863–Part I,” The Military Engineer, Volume 34, No. 200, June 1942, pp. 

287-88; American State Papers, Military Affairs, Washington. D.C., 1832-

1861, p. 3:492; see also Theo. F. Rodenbough and William L. Haskin, The 

Army of the United States, Argonaut Press LTD, New York, 1966, reprint of 

1896 edition, pp. 113-14.

3

 Frank N. Schubert, editor, The Nation Builders, A Sesquicentennial 

History of the Corps of Topographical Engineers, 1838-1863, Office of 

History, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 1988, pp. 

4-6; Traas, pp. 11-12.

4

 Traas, pp. 7-8.

5

 Ibid., pp. 12-14; Beers, Part I, pp. 287-88; Richard G. Wood, Stephen 

Harriman Long, 1784-1864, Army Engineer, Explorer, Inventor, The Arthur 

H. Clark Company, Glendale, California, 1966, pp. 203-06.

6

 Beers, Part I, pp. 280-90; Schubert, pp. 10-11.

7

 Traas, p. 14.

8

 Schubert, p. 21; Traas, p. 16.

9

 Schubert, p. 23; Beers, Part I, p. 290.

10 Beers, Part I, pp. 290-91; Garry David Ryan, “War Department 

Topographical Bureau, 1831-1863, An Administrative History,” The 

American University, 1968, pp. 111-12, 124-25; Schubert, pp. 31-32.

11 Henry P. Beers, “A History of the U.S. Topographical Engineers, 

1813-1863–Part II,” The Military Engineer, Volume 34, No. 201, July 1942,

p. 350.

12 Schubert, pp. 57-59; Traas, pp. 22-23.

13 Beers, Part II, pp. 350-51; Ryan, pp. 186-88.

14 Ryan, p. 154. 

15 Schubert, pp. 43-45, 48-51; Traas, p. 222; Ryan, p. 342.

16 Ryan, pp. 320-24, 343. 

17 Beers, Part II, pp. 351-52.

18 Philip L. Shiman, “Army Engineers in the War for the Union, 1861-

1865,” Office of History, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Alexandria, 

Virginia,1995, p. 12.

19 Ibid., pp. 11, 14; Philip Lewis Shiman, “Engineering Sherman’s March: 

Army Engineers and the Management of Modern War, 1862-1865,” Duke 

University, 1991, p. 47; Special Order No. 237, Adjutant General Lorenzo 

Thomas, Headquarters, War Department, 3 September 1861.

20 Shiman, “Army Engineers,” p. 21.

21 Ibid., pp. 42-45.

22 Traas, pp. 223; Ryan, pp. 333-38.
By Major Jon A. Brierton

The sun rises over Forward Operating Base (FOB) 

Santa Fe, located in “The Box” at the National Training Center (NTC), Fort Irwin, California, for another 

rotation of Operation Sand Castle, where the 412th Engineer 

Command serves as the action agent for the United States 

Army Reserve Command’s current Army Force Generation 

exercise. A unique feature of this exercise is the requirement 

that the Active Army brigade combat team (BCT) and the 

Army Reserve brigade coexist in the same operational environment as they would in-theater. Each component has to 

adapt to the other, thus creating a mutually supporting relationship that yields an overall stronger fighting force. 

However, the training that occurs between the two components is just the beginning. In addition to training individual 

Soldiers, Operation Sand Castle gives the Army a chance to 

exercise its newest operational structure. The 301st Maneuver Enhancement Brigade (MEB) from Fort Lewis, Washington, and the 210th Regional Support Group (RSG) from Fort 

Buchanan, Puerto Rico, are two new structures in the Army. 

This year’s operation focused on emerging MEB and RSG 

doctrine and the dynamics that take place between the seniorlevel commands within a BCT’s operational environment, 

executing full spectrum counterinsurgency operations. NTC 

provides the opportunity to test these structures as new doctrine is still being developed.

The 301st MEB and 210th RSG catapulted the exercise to 

the next level by planning, coordinating, and executing a robust training plan which, coupled with the desert environment 

and the NTC rotational scenario, resulted in conditions that 

resemble those in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 301st MEB—

consisting of engineer, military police, and chemical battalions—coordinated with the 2d Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 

1st Infantry Division (2/1 HBCT), from Fort Riley, Kansas, 

and controlled all operations off the FOB, while the 210th 

RSG controlled all operations on the FOB.

The 301st MEB operated in “The Box,” coordinating and 

supporting 2/1 HBCT with mobility through its gap-crossing 

and route clearance capabilities and with horizontal and vertical engineer capabilities not resident in the BCT command 

structure. During an attack on the National Urban Warfare 

Complex (NUWC), known as Medina Jabal, the 301st MEB 

exercised its air space management and fires control capability by coordinating with the BCT close-air and fire support 

assets to mitigate the Opposing Force (OPFOR) attack. Within minutes, Apache helicopters were over the site, providing 

relief to the Operation Sand Castle units, and unmanned aerial 

vehicles circled the area to keep the OPFOR away.

74 Engineer July-December 2008
July-December 2008 Engineer 75

Throughout the operation, the 301st MEB directed mounted combat patrols, route reconnaissance, route security, and 

mobility operations in a competitive environment while directing simultaneous construction operations at the NUWC, 

the mock village of Medina Wasl at Four Corners, the rock 

quarry, and the southeast corner of Area of Operation Bronco, 

along Alternate Supply Route Long Island. The mission at 

Four Corners was an extra project assigned when the 301st 

MEB hit the ground. This complex project consisted of constructing a 90-foot concrete traffic circle near Medina Wasl. 

The 365th Engineer Battalion tackled the project and when it 

was finished, the 301st, 2/1 HBCT, and the village mayor conducted a ribbon-cutting ceremony with townspeople attending 

the event as they would in Iraq.

NTC’s mission is to prepare Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and 

Marines for deployment in support of the War on Terrorism. 

The main focus of Operation Sand Castle is to prepare Army 

Reserve Soldiers for potential deployments, and the operational mission is to provide upgrades to NTC facilities and the 

NUWC, the premier training area for BCTs. Operation Sand 

Castle, now entering the fourth year of a planned ten-year 

operation, is improving the infrastructure of the NUWC to 

replicate conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan more accurately, 

so Soldiers have a better idea of what to expect when they 

deploy. This creates a two-fold effect that provides Army 

Reserve Soldiers a training opportunity that greatly improves 

their tactical and technical skills, while simultaneously improving the infrastructure of the installation and enhancing the 

post’s ability to train the total force for the future. This is made 

possible by having Operation Sand Castle units written into the 

rotational scenario under the watchful oversight of observer/ 

controller-trainers (O/C-Ts). The 120th Infantry Brigade, 

1st Army Division West, provided 58 O/C-Ts for the operation, 

helping to stage all the training events normally conducted by 

a BCT, to include situational training exercises and center of 

excellence training opportunities. The O/C-Ts coordinated for 

OPFOR and ran the mounted combat patrol and convoy livefire lanes for the participating units. 

Operation Sand Castle units experienced many indirectfire attacks and civil disturbances not only at the FOB but 

also at the NUWC. While the units traversed the main supply 

routes, combat patrols were engaged by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and vehicle-borne IEDs. Snipers attacked 

both the FOB and the various project sites. These key OPFOR 

engagements not only added to the realism of the exercise 

but also tested the units’ battle drills and standing operating 

procedures (SOPs). The units are taking the lessons learned 

and improving their SOPs for use in-theater. 

The mock village of Medina Jabal gives Soldiers a realistic taste of duty in Iraq.
The Army Reserve is not the strategic force of the past but 

has transformed into an operational force. The number of units 

participating in Operation Sand Castle has tripled since its 

beginnings four years ago. This year the operation had more 

than 54 separate units, with more than 2,500 Soldiers on the 

ground experiencing the best training the Army has to offer. 

These motivated Soldiers established an FOB that provided 

all life support and sustainment requirements. For example, 

in addition to its measure-of-training-effectiveness mission to 

provide level one medical care to the task force at FOB Santa 

Fe, medical personnel from the 328th Combat Support Hospital also trained and certified 408 Soldiers as combat lifesavers 

and 17 as combat lifesaver instructors.

The Operation Sand Castle task force conducted more than 

55 missions, encompassing force protection, route clearance 

and dry-gap-crossing mobility operations, quarry operations, 

and vertical and horizontal construction operations. The construction effort netted more than 26,000 tons of gravel and 

railroad ballast used in the construction of 11 pre-engineered 

buildings, 14 concrete masonry unit buildings, 8,900 feet of 

railroad bed, and more than 10,600 feet of roads. In addition, 

the 655th Asphalt Detachment repaired more than 400 meters 

of damage to the main supply route and helped resurface two 

parking lots in the cantonment area. 

Operation Sand Castle units also conducted 29 individual 

and crew-served weapons, live hand grenade and live demolitions range sessions, and 30 situational training exercise lanes 

that covered mounted combat patrol; convoy live-fire; medical trauma; and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear 

tasks. The Soldiers have access to a myriad of outstanding 

training opportunities, such as the Joint Center of Excellence 

for IED Defeat. More than 180 Soldiers were trained on the 

latest tactics, techniques, and procedures for IED defeat; electronic countermeasures; route clearance; robotics; and entry 

control point and escalation-of-force operations.

Another notable first was the United Service Organizations 

(USO) show conducted at the midpoint of the exercise by a 

Hollywood comedian and two Los Angeles-area bands. This 

was the first time that a USO show was presented in “The 

Box” at NTC during a rotation. The show gave the troops a 

few hours of downtime to regenerate as they prepared to finish 

their aggressive combat and construction operational tempo 

and replicated the FOB experience.

This year, the Army National Guard was integrated into 

the training. As Operation Sand Castle continues to increase 

in size and magnitude, there are plans to invite the other 

branches of the Service for joint training. The way ahead is to 

eventually train with armed forces from other countries in an 

effort to fully match conditions in-theater. The 412th Engineer 

Command continues to raise the bar and take training to the 

next level in an effort to help our Service members survive 

and win the War on Terrorism.

Major Brierton is the chief of operations for the 412th Engineer Command. He has been the lead action officer for Operation Sand Castle for the last two years. He has deployed 

to Iraq as the assistant operations and training officer and 

battle captain of the 983d Engineer Battalion and has commanded a light engineer equipment company. He is a graduate of the Combined Arms and Services Staff School and holds 

a master’s in organizational management from the University 

of Phoenix.

Soldiers and performers pose after the first USO show presented in “The Box” at NTC during a rotation.

76 Engineer July-December 2008
July-December 2008 Engineer 77

Engineer Update

Korea’s 2009 Peninsula Engineer Conference. The Combined Forces Command (CFC) and US Forces Korea 

(USFK) announce the 2009 Peninsula Engineer Conference (PEC) to be held from 4 through 6 February 2009 in 

Seoul, South Korea. Hosted by the Society of American Military Engineers (SAME), registration will be open soon for 

300 participants on a first-come, first-served basis. 

This year’s theme is “Transforming Korea.” USFK is presenting speakers with the latest updates on Transformation to US Korea Command (USKORCOM) and the Korea Relocation Plan. The 2009 PEC will feature a tour 

to the site of the future USKORCOM Headquarters and “Humphreys Hub” near Pyeongtaek. Participants will view 

engineer updates on the USFK Theater Master Plan, KRP Construction, and Combat Engineering. The 2009 PEC 

will also include an Engineer Ball and other traditional military and social events.

Those interested in attending may contact Mr. Tom Brady at USFK Engineers, e-mail <thomas.m.brady@korea.army.mil>, or call commercial +82-2-2791-3260 (DSN 315-723-3260). For more details, see <www.same.

org/pec>.

Engineer Crane Training. Crane accidents are one of the leading causes of death and injury in the construction industry today. These accidents are attributed to rigging failure, improper positioning, falls, dropped loads and 

improper outrigger use. Often, crane accidents are also the result of inadequate training and the lack of preventive 

maintenance, experience and supervision, and required inspections. Crane operators and supervisors must know 

the capability of their equipment to prevent rollovers and navigate properly to avoid striking overhead obstructions. 

Several documented crane accidents have occurred in the theater of operations over the past few years to include 

the death of a Soldier due to electrocution when a crane boom struck an overhead power line.

To address the safety and technical training needs of crane operations, the Engineer School has made changes 

in the way Soldiers are trained and qualified to operate the All-Terrain Crane AT422-T. Beginning in FY09, the 

Engineer Crane Operator Course, currently being taught as part of the 21J Course, will become an Additional Skill 

Identifier (ASI), coded C4. The new 3-week course is a week longer than the former course, with the first week 

introducing a Crane Safety block of instruction based on Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

standards. This 40-hour block of training consists of (1) Introduction, (2) Math, (3) History, Evolution, and Types of 

Cranes, (4) Fundamentals of Cranes and Lifting Operations, (5) Rules, Regulations, and Agencies, (6) Rigging,

(7) Determine Lifting Requirements, (8) Types of Lifts, (9) Inspections and Standards, (10) Communication, and 

(11) Additional Safety Devices.

The new block of instruction is math-intensive and requires students to be able to complete basic and intermediate 

math calculations without the aid of a calculator. The remaining 80 hours of the course will consist of equipment 

operating time, to include (1) Introduction to AT-422-T Crane, (2) Maneuvering Operations, (3) Set-Up Procedures, 

(4) Procedures for Moving Various Types of Loads, (5) Clamshell Operations, and (6) Control Manipulation Practical 

Exercise. 

Currently, the Engineer School is working to input the C4 ASI into ATTRS for scheduling. Once courses are 

loaded into ATRRS, unit ATRRS managers can request seats for training. Until that time, units requiring crane 

operator training should contact the Fort Leonard Wood Directorate of Plans, Training, and Mobilization at 

(573) 563-4052. For specific questions about the course contact 1LT Vance C. Flowers at A Company, 554th 

Engineer Battalion, Horizontal Skills Division, at (573) 596-0131, Ext. 6-0996/7435.

News and Notes