Engineer

JAN-APR 2014

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.

Issue link: https://engineer.epubxp.com/i/284727

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 15 of 55

14 Engineer January–April 2014 I n an era of declining resources, numerous measures have been taken to reduce costs. These have led to a decrease in available training opportunities and dollars, with a corresponding decrease in readiness. The establish- ment of the U.S. Army Installation Management Command (IMCOM) fundamentally changed the way that U.S. Army installations were funded and managed, and it created a physical divide between engineers and the installations they support. Due to the demands of more than 12 years of con- duties such as gate guard and dining facility worker have been contracted, in part to free uniformed Soldiers for combat. These contracts, though necessary, are costly. In light of current fscal realities, a process of regreening is tak- ing place. Military police Soldiers are manning installation gates. Army cooks are preparing food in dining facilities. This article asks, "Why not do the same with our engineers, irrespective of component?" O ur Army is a brigade combat team (BCT)-centric Army. BCTs are our most important platform, serving as our "aircraft carriers." They conduct training such as company and battalion task force green weeks that culminate in a decisive-action training environ- ment rotation at one of the combat training centers, which costs roughly $23 million per rotation. The Army has spent an enormous amount of money to attain a certain level of readiness; but at the end of that pathway, all we have is readiness. Senior Army leaders say that we should not pay for readiness we will not use. In the future, if you are not per- forming a specifc mission (especially as Operation Enduring Freedom winds down), then what will the Army be paying you to do? Engineers must also attain a level of readiness, but the pathway to that readiness and how we will use it are markedly different. That is the thrust of this article. W hen one thinks of net zero, the frst images that arise are green roofs, motion-sensitive light switches, rainwater reuse, and photovoltaic devices. Using the BCT training example above, can we not apply a net zero approach to engineer training that would provide readi- ness and a material cost savings to the U.S. government for operations and maintenance; sustainment, restoration, and modernization; minor construction; and even civil works projects? Perhaps we could call this Net Zero for Training. Engineers level a concrete pad while helping with con- struction at a training site. EN Roth.1.indd 17 3/12/2014 1:30:17 PM

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Engineer - JAN-APR 2014