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
January–April 2014 10 hours, to the joy of local populace. Freedom of movement was restored before the morning rush hour traffc. Phase V: Continue the attack. This phase was strictly dependent on the success of the other four phases of the operation. While there was no attack involved, the position- ing of friendly forces within the crossing area and bridge- head could have dealt with any threat. As a joint planning team, we recognized that the most likely time to encounter an insurgent threat was during withdrawal from the objec- tive. The withdrawal plan was synchronized through com- munication from the crossing site commander's updates to the forward command post. If a unit can withdraw to secure locations on both sides of the gap, it will have a smooth tran- sition off the objective since the commander will need less combat power to travel back across the gap. Conclusion B ridging is a combined arms effort and, in this case, was also a joint endeavor. Following doctrine and doctri- nal templates not only worked but also helped make the operation easily articulated and understood. The mission was synchronized through a simple and clear decision sup- port matrix. Mission command was clear. When planning for gap-crossing operations in combat, in general engineering, or during an exercise, it is imperative to use doctrine to bridge the gap in knowledge and experience. It is critical for the Engineer Regiment to ensure that its focus remains on what is so often neglected—bridging. This operation succeeded due to a degree of surprise; extensive preparation, coordi- nation, and representation with coalition partners; planning, with decision points identifed by clear criteria; the ability to adjust schedules; traffc management through successful blocking and traffc control points implemented by Afghan and coalition partners; organization by effective mission command and liaison vehicles located with the tac- tical command post and crossing site commander; and the speed with which all parties fulflled their respective tasks within the crossing area and bridgehead line. Endnotes: 1 Army Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures 3-90.4, - , 10 August 2011, p. F-8. 2 Ibid., p. 4-5. 3 Lieutenant Colonel James Roddis, commanding offcer, the Highlanders, 4th Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Scot- land, Manoeuver Battlegroup, briefng presented at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan, November 2013. Captain Hanson is the co ander of the 34th Sapper Co pany, 84th Engineer Battalion. He hold aster's degree in engineering anage ent fro Missouri Univer- sity of Science and Technology at Rolla, and a bachelor's degree in govern ent and law fro afayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania. When he wrote this article, he was the offcer in charge of the Task Force Bayonet tactical co - and post at Ca p Leatherneck, Afghanistan. 50 Engineer Webster defnes ready As being prepared mentally or physically For some experience or action, Prepared for immediate use. But with all due respect to Webster, There's ready, And there's Engineer Ready. It's a physical readiness. It's an emotional readiness. It's a readiness of character, And a readiness of purpose. It's a readiness to do good today, And a readiness to do well tomorrow. It's a readiness to obey, And a readiness to command. It's a readiness to build, And a readiness to tear down. It's a readiness to get yourself over, And a readiness to get over yourself. There is nothing on this green earth That is more ready Than the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Because there is nothing on this green earth That's more ready Than the Soldiers and civilians Of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Army Strong, Engineer Ready! —Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp, Jr. EN Hanson.1.indd 53 3/12/2014 1:22:16 PM