Engineer Memoirs_________________________________________________________
or 2d Engineer Group, they are current force structure organizations, mission oriented and therefore
do not fit design parameters. In addition, they provide no ready association for Divisional Engineer
Battalions.
The Corps of Engineers' long history of battlefield action is maintained at two levels--overall Corps
of Engineers and at battalion. Both lineage and heraldry tie the present to past battlefield exploits at
battalion level. Because engineer contributions to battle have been in the past so extensive
throughout the length and breadth of battle, those contributions embrace combat, combat support and
combat service support functions on the battlefield. That total story is found only in the story of the
engineers as a Corps--embracing all theatres, all campaigns, all construction and nation building and
by engineer units in great numbers whose designation and individual lineage today rests often only in
the U.S. Army Center of Military History (CMH) whose exploits are wrapped in the history of the
whole "Corps of Engineers."
Are our assumptions valid? In addressing this question, I believe the above identifies as invalid the
assumption that we will obtain greater bonding or esprit in the developed regimental association
based on ties to past lineage. The orientation of current serving soldiers to their battalion, and the
strong history and ties of the Corps provide the greater opportunity for affiliation, for developing
loyalty and commitment and further fostering a sense of belonging. Because we train and operate as
battalions, unit esprit and the warfighting ethos will not be extended by regimental associations.
The second assumption to be addressed is the suggestion that we need to do something--that action
is needed within the engineer force to further the purposes articulated above. I believe the strong
identification of the Corps of Engineers as a "Corps" probably provides a more purposeful affiliation
than that of many other branches. That is due in part to its long history but also the fact that it retains
a serving "Chief" and has an additional bonding mission of historical significance in serving the
nation. Certainly, the identification of soldiers for their serving and past battalions should not be
broken by any action to be taken. The fact that the CSA has decoupled the personnel assignment
system from the regimental system (and that homebasing remains a voluntary way soldiers can return
to a desired CONUS base and unit) removes a requirement to associate battalions in a regiment to
foster personnel assignments.
A third assumption offered is that engineers need to organize as regiments because other combat
arms are organizing as regiments. That argument tends to be artificial as I addressed above and
further avoids recognizing that infantry has in the past fought as regiments whereas engineers have
typically fought as battalions and further dismisses the very large contribution of combat engineers
throughout the battlefield--combat, combat support, and construction.
I would argue that there are reasons to not "stand fast"--that there are significant actions that can be
taken within the Engineer force to obtain the purposes of the Regimental System enumerated by
CSA.
What can be/should be done? Or stated in more direct form--in consideration of design parameters
and the purposes intended, and the way engineers have been (history and lineage) and are (modern
day realities) organized, what should be done to insure the purposes of the regimental system are
obtained for the engineer force?
B-2
Previous Page
