________________________________________________________________________Richard S. Kem
To answer that, I sought to further identify strengths and weaknesses of our current principal bonding
affiliations--with the Corps of Engineers as a branch and with the engineer battalion.
--The Corps of Engineers is a significant bonding element for engineer officers. I perceive such a
bond for the enlisted soldier at initial entry is not so strong yet develops as the soldier advances into
NCO ranks. Thus, ways to the identification of the enlisted soldier with his "Corps" are appropriate.
When one recognizes that most officers never serve at Fort Leonard Wood and most enlisted
engineer soldiers never serve at Fort Belvoir (the first across the board opportunity at the SFC level
advanced course), it is readily obvious that the collocation of engineer officer and NCO training at
Fort Leonard Wood with the engineer enlisted training would provide opportunities to fortify
common bonds and affiliation.
--Engineer battalions provide a significant point of pride in service and affiliation for the officer and
NCO. Because of the wide geographical distribution of these units, repetitive assignments don't
often occur for officers, and are more prevalent for enlisted soldiers in special type units such as
airborne or topographic battalions. Within army engineer battalions, lineage, significance of
historical contribution, and availability of museums vary widely. In seeking to further bonding that
will live and grow--rather than be unwieldy and thus through erosion fail to obtain the purposes
desired. That which can be done at battalion level to focus bonding I believe is currently being
accomplished with leaders focusing on the unit, the mission, and emphasis on soldiers belonging to a
first class outfit. To extend that battalion bonding to the future, to maintain bond/affiliation that is
meaningful and continuing, is difficult to accomplish. One way would be to continue the
identification by the continued wearing of that battalion crest. Can battalions feasibly maintain the
rosters, establish the museums and maintain the constants that foster continued affiliation? What
happens with force changes? My analysis is that, whereas engineers feel strong association with the
battalions with those they serve, or have served, and would be happy to wear the crest, the purposes
identified for the regimental system will for the most part not be obtained and will logistically be a
problem.
How then to proceed? I believe the purposes of the regimental framework articulated by CSA are
best captured in identification of the "Corps of Engineers" as a "Corps"--embodying the lineage of
Corps of Engineer contributions to the Army in each battle and campaign since Bunker Hill in 1775;
capturing the diversity of engineer contributions to all parts of the battlefield from close combat with
armor and infantry in the forward brigade area to combat support and construction throughout the
theatre; incorporating the contributions of all, eliminating none; providing a way to include all
individuals in the Corps to include the training base; providing the potential to extend through the
total Army. This would parallel similar designation in the British Army where the Corps of Royal
Engineers is drawn from throughout the U.K. rather than the more narrow regiments (geographically
associated) of other arms. It would identify the distribution of engineers throughout the U.S.
Army--every echelon, in every theatre, on every battlefield, in every way.
Concept of execution: The establishment of the Corps of Engineers as the affiliation embodiment
for engineers in the Army's Regimental system would entail several actions.
B-3
Previous Page
