John W. Morris
As I see the past from a distance and through the veil of retirement, there appear to be several
A
events which singularly and collectively have diluted the capability of the Chief of Engineers
and his command
to fulfill their role of service to the Army in war and to the nation
in peace.
Professionalism has softened steadily within
The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors was abolished.
Technical job prerequisites were broadened to attract nontechnical applicants to
positions traditionally filled by engineers.
Contracting authority has been removed from the district commander unless he or
she branch transfers. As a consequence, the commander is denied a key
and-control element essential in executing his responsibilities.
. In-house engineering continues to give way to engineering by contract.
Army career-development programs for the military have progressively favored
repeated troop service to the disadvantage of and disservice to
and in the
number and qualifications of general officers chosen for Corps roles.
. A cultural change has occurred as the civil program trended away from
of resources toward
o f resources. Even
some development will
always be in the mix of tasks.
Operation and maintenance budgets now exceed the construction budget, and for the
foreseeable future, environmental and operational matters will continue to capture the
lion's share of both the military and public works budgets.
The appreciation and support of the Corps of Engineers within the Congress has
declined from all outward appearances.
has seen several of the most
knowledgeable and supportive members of Congress leave that body in the last few
years.
The increasing demands of the Assistant Secretary of the
for Civil Works on
the time of the Chief of Engineers have reduced the Chief's time for his top-priority
mission to support the Army. As a consequence, the historic, deep-seated, and widely
spread lack of understanding and appreciation of the importance of the civil program
within the uniformed Army has been aggravated and intensified. Having been directly
involved with the assistant secretary's office during the first seven years of its
operation and a close observer for the past 17 years, I believe this element of the
secretariat needs to be evaluated in detail for composition, purpose, need, and possibly
combining with another assistant secretariat such as Installations and Environment.
I do not question the value of the
office in the political arena and with
Congress and senior elements of the Executive Branch. On the other hand, the
currently has only one activity and one command to address. As a
consequence, like a mother hen with one chick, the assistant secretary becomes overly
involved in the internal activities of USACE. Over the years, this involvement has had
the unexpected and unintended impact of reducing the Chief's time for supporting the
Army. Both USACE and the U.S. Army suffer.
217
Previous Page
