Memoirs
disappointing, particularly in the water transportation field. Everybody's been jumping
around trying to build dams, and that's okay, too, but transportation has been left out.
One by-product of the international program, of course, was the Israeli airfield job, and that
came to the Corps because President Carter had put it into the Camp David agreement. In
many ways, that's probably the most complicated and most difficult job I had in my military
service in the Corps. I think we'll save that for a special subject later.
I want to leave the international program by stressing its beneficial results from projects in
Africa, South America, et cetera.
Q ..
We have discussed civil and international programs. What about the
activities in
support of the Army and Air Force?
A
We haven't talked much about military, but as Chief of Engineers, I spent more time on
military programs than I did on the public works and the international programs. The reasons
for that are rather basic. The only reason that the Corps of Engineers exists in the first place
is to provide good engineering service to the military. If there had to be a choice-and I hope
there never is-the public works program would not be a part of the Corps' mission. The
military support would always be-that' s fundamental.
However, if the Corps has a civil works program, this peacetime mission greatly enhances
our ability to support the military in war and peace. That point's not al.ways clearly
understood.
One of the Chief of Engineers' fundamental requirements is keeping the United States Army
as his principal target for support service. All the other roles have to be subordinated to that
objective. That's why one of our four goals was to support the Total Army. Total Army:
National Guard, Reserves, and Active Forces.
We took a serious look at all the things we were doing and how to better support the
military-not just construction, but military mobilization, engineering equipment, supply,
organization for combat, support of soldiers, and support in the Army-the whole spectrum.
Several things came out of that which I believe we should illustrate. One was the real
property management program, which we covered earlier. The idea was that from cradle to
grave, the Chief of Engineers should be responsible for real property. He should be required
to acquire the land, develop plans and programs for its use, design, do construction, the
operation and maintenance, then ultimately the dispos al. Those functions all deal with real
property, and my thought was the Chief of Engineers should be the responsible person for
every bit of tha t , including the money.
At that time, program management was a big thing. There was a program for research and
development, a program for procurement. I published and lectured on the real property
management program for the Army, and was successful, basically, in putting all that under
one manager, the director of Military Programs, as I'd call it. We finally brought to the Chief
of Engineers all of the functions that I mentioned except one, that one-the control of the
money for repairs, utilities, and maintenance.
We had the money for the housing, we had money for construction, but we didn't have
control over the money for operation and maintenance; however, we did have a lot to say
about getting the money and justifying it to Congress and providing technical advice to the
facilities engineer in using the money. So that real property management program to me was
a simple, clear way to visualize the military program. Out of that idea came what we called
154
Previous Page
