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
44 Engineer January–April 2014 FOB Salerno had a population of about 4,000 personnel in May 2013, and it took nearly 2 months to get a detailed list of these parties. By early July, it became evident under which label each tenant belonged. This informal stakeholder analysis and the decision that FOB Salerno would be trans- ferred to Afghan National Security Force control clarifed the problem set faced by the battalion. In accordance with Army Doctrine Reference Publication 5-0, The Operations Process, 1 the problem could be framed by three basic questions: ■ How should the exodus of units and agencies be syn- chronized while maintaining operations during the summer fghting season? ■ What would be the most effcient way to off-load life sup- port services to support FOB closure? ■ How should the FOB be prepared for eventual transfer to Afghan control while maintaining the necessary level of force protection? To address those questions and perform the complex planning required, the brigade commander directed the bri- gade staff to execute a full military decisionmaking process on the closure of FOB Salerno. Since the staff was deployed, planning time was not a factor. Led by the brigade execu- tive offcer, the brigade staff spent many nights developing a plan that addressed the three framing questions. As the executive offcer of the battalion tasked with the closure, I was also involved in planning. With the brigade command- er's direction, we had the authority and approved timelines to complete the mission. Solution Design T hree working groups were established to meet and execute the plan. Force Protection/Facilities Utilization. A legacy of the previous task force, this working group was known as FP/FU. Originally created to publish force protection com- mand messages in the style of a town hall meeting, these meetings were expanded to cast as wide a net as possible and were held every 2 weeks. Through exhaustive personal inter- actions and mass e-mails, as many of the FOB users as pos- sible were assembled. To avoid problems with security clear- ances, the information presented was unclassifed. Publicly, the meetings were presented as a way for tenants to learn about the closure. Privately, the meetings were meant to learn about the disparate agencies that showed up. The sign- in rosters proved critical since they yielded contact informa- tion and internal departure timelines that were often at odds with aggressive closure deadlines. At their peak, these meet- ings drew more than 35 agencies to one sitting and proved to be very effective during the early phases of execution. Executive Offcer/Base Operations. This meeting brought together clients and owners who formed the core group tasked with reducing the FOB to the point of trans- fer. Participants included commissioned and noncom- missioned offcers from the engineer horizontal company (tasked with demolition operations), the forward retrograde element, prime power providers, strategic signal elements, the logistics support offce, and the movement control team. Additionally, key force protection feld service representa- tives and brigade representatives (such as the brigade engi- neer, transportation offcer, and base operations offcer) also attended. Designating the right assortment of attendees took time; but eventually, the key players who made the physical reduc- tion of FOB Salerno possible were identifed. This group met twice weekly, with a focus on the next 72 hours of the reduc- tion fght. A grand task list, sorted by date and associated with a FOB Salerno grid reference graphic, helped main- tain an internal common operational picture. This was a sausage-making meeting that kept us ahead of the timeline. FOB Salerno Closure. The meeting included the bat- talion executive offcer of each 4th Brigade Combat Team task force, offcers from the Special Operations Command, representatives from other government agencies, critical sustainment representatives such as the brigade logistics support team and brigade security and plans offcer, and the offcer representing the 401st Army Field Support Brigade. Afghan workers complete a portion of the enduring perimeter. EN Sawser.1.indd 47 3/12/2014 1:33:27 PM