thedrifter
12-02-03, 09:21 AM
Combining 1st and 2d Combat Engineer Battalions:
Should We Do It Again?
by LtCol Michael A. Micucci
While combining CEBs during OIF provided a capable combat engineer resource,
questions remain concerning the best way to employ combat engineers in the future.
Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) presented many challenges that gave rise to new opportunities for the Marines Corps. Among these was the forming of a combined combat engineer battalion (CEB) from the resources of the two active duty CEBs—1st CEB from Camp Pendleton and 2d CEB from Camp Lejeune. The combined CEB proved successful during OIF, effectively accomplishing all assigned missions while providing the 1st Marine Division (1st MarDiv) with a robust, highly capable combat engineer resource. While overall success was enjoyed by the battalion, it is worth examining several issues encountered during this experience in order to ascertain if this was, in fact, the best way to employ the combat engineers. This article will provide such an examination and will offer some lessons learned for consideration if such combination is to be planned for in the future.
Other battalions combined for OIF, such as the amphibious assault battalions, but none combined and integrated to the extent as the CEBs that merged two staffs so that there was only one commanding officer (CO), executive officer (XO), S–1 (personnel), and so forth. Even our name changed to “Combat Engineer Battalion” with no number designator of 1st or 2d CEB.
The combined CEB was distributed in support of more than 12 separate battalions. It was comprised of more than 1,100 Marines and sailors completing missions ranging from bridge and route reconnaissance, improving the mobility along Highway 1, breaching and clearing mines, sensitive site security, clearing airfields, fighting as infantry, building bridges, collecting and destroying weapons caches, and conducting civil-military operations and humanitarian assistance.
1st, 2d, and 4th CEBs met in December 2002 to finalize how the battalions would organize for combat. The 1st MarDiv commanding general’s sole mandate was that he wanted one point of contact for the engineers; specifically, the CO, 1st CEB would assume the role as the division engineer officer. This requirement essentially allowed the CEBs two courses of action (COAs). First, attach each CEB to a regimental combat team (RCT), or secondly, combine the battalions under the CO, 2d CEB, and attach the letter companies to the RCTs. Collectively, we selected the second COA. Under this arrangement the letter companies were augmented with a robust heavy equipment/motor transport detachment, and the CEB personnel remaining—consisting of two headquarters and service (H&S) companies, two engineer support companies, and a combat engineer platoon—were consolidated and placed in general support of the 1st MarDiv. This slice of combat engineers would carry out separate missions but, more importantly, was available to reinforce the RCTs as required.
For each RCT we also decided to establish a regimental engineer cell led by a major who would coordinate the efforts of the combat engineer companies (two to three per regiment) and the support detachment. He would also become the primary advisor to the regimental commander for all engineer matters.
All CEB commanders agreed this was a solid plan, and everything was on track until January when the Marine Corps was unable to activate 4th CEB. This situation reduced the number of combat engineer companies by 50 percent. Fortunately, ground operations succeeded and occurred at the speed required by the force commander, but the engineers were definitely undermanned from the start. Without 4th CEB’s combat engineer companies we were only able to field four companies for the 1st MarDiv. (Company C, 2d CEB, supported RCT–1; Company B, 1st CEB, supported RCT–5; and both Companies C and D, 1st CEB, supported RCT–7. 2d CEB also attached Company A to RCT–2 as part of Task Force Tarawa.) We also decided to scratch the regimental engineer cell except for RCT–7, who was designated as the division’s initial main effort.
Combining two battalions provided a substantial combat engineer capability, but it also created some unforeseen consequences that should be addressed in the future before a decision is made to combine battalions. Specifically, there are four major issues: time, leadership, increased size of the H&S company, and the engineer capability with the RCTs. I will describe how the combined CEB dealt with each of these along with how we attempted to alleviate some of the challenges we had to face.
Time and the Impact of Unit Cohesion
We had 5 weeks until we crossed the line of departure. This was not a significant amount of time considering the majority of our effort was spent receiving equipment from strategic shipping and trying to integrate the new group into a cohesive unit. This effort occurs in every major deployment but not to the degree experienced by battalions deploying from opposite coasts. The inevitable consequence was reduced time available for the necessary detailed planning, immediate actions refinement, and conducting “what if” drills. Although we did accomplish these things within the 5 weeks prior to combat operations, our ability to do it to the depth desired was severely restricted because we also experienced significant growing pains trying to determine who we were as a combined unit and who was the best qualified for particular requirements.
OIF was a I Marine Expeditionary Force fight with 2d MarDiv serving as a force provider (with the exception of 2d Marine Expeditionary Brigade and Task Force Tarawa). Although 2d CEB had been involved in most of the planning and coordinated with 1st CEB in deciding how to outfit the combined battalion with personnel and equipment, we continued to work off of the 2d MarDiv training schedule until December 2002. Our focus did not totally shift to OIF until Combined Arms Exercise 3/4 was canceled, and we knew with some degree of certainty that we were deploying to Southwest Asia.
Clearly, in the future, sufficient time must be allotted for the merged battalions to become a cohesive unit. If there is not enough time, then don’t combine the battalions. Ultimately, we made the combination work and did so with success. However, I believe there were other battalions, who had trained together for the past year, that were better synchronized.
There Will Be Leadership Changes and Challenges
When merging battalions it seems reasonable to assume that the combination of leadership will be a 50/50 split, but this was not the case for CEB. 2d CEB came in with some very senior staff. For example, we had three master sergeants, senior first lieutenants in most sections, and four major selectees. As a result 2d CEB took many of the senior billets within the combined battalion. Assigned as the commander I felt very comfortable with this outcome. After all, I had trained and deployed with my Marines for the past year during battalion- and division-level exercises at Fort AP Hill, VA and Camp Lejeune, and I knew their capabilities. More importantly, I knew how they would react under stress and in the absence of orders. I could not say the same about my sister battalion, since I knew few of their officers or staff noncommissioned officers (SNCOs) before meeting them either a few months prior or while in theater.
Merging of sections, such as the communications platoon, proved very challenging. Senior Marines were placed in senior billets and junior Marines who had done much of the planning became assistants. This became very frustrating and upsetting for some of them. Merging battalions will create a new command, and the mixture of the staff will never seem fair to all. Additionally, some junior leaders found difficulty in relinquishing their loyalties to their former superiors knowing that when the war was over they would serve for them again. Although most were professional and accepted the combined arrangement, there were some who eagerly sought out their previous bosses when the outcome of decisions was not to their liking. This was frustrating and had unsatisfactory impacts to say the least.
Both commanders of 1st and 2d CEBs were selected by a board to command their battalions and lead Marines. All of a sudden when it comes time to deploy, one is relegated to being a staff officer as the division engineer while the other is going to lead both battalions. If not for the division engineer cell, one commander may have been forced to work for the other. Only a very gracious and unselfish commander will relinquish his command to someone else, especially during time of war. Even so, the arrangement is bound to produce friction at some level.
Also very unique, the merging of the battalions accounted for two sergeants major. My hat goes off to both of them because they made the arrangement work. I do not know many sergeants major who are willing to share command, but these two gentlemen did so professionally and selflessly. The battalion was better served with both of them because we had two sets of eyes from the senior enlisted leadership. This arrangement was successful but could have been a catastrophe. During ground offensive operations my sergeant major went with me in the CEB forward, and 1st CEB’s sergeant major went with the battalion XO in the CEB main.
continued......
Should We Do It Again?
by LtCol Michael A. Micucci
While combining CEBs during OIF provided a capable combat engineer resource,
questions remain concerning the best way to employ combat engineers in the future.
Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) presented many challenges that gave rise to new opportunities for the Marines Corps. Among these was the forming of a combined combat engineer battalion (CEB) from the resources of the two active duty CEBs—1st CEB from Camp Pendleton and 2d CEB from Camp Lejeune. The combined CEB proved successful during OIF, effectively accomplishing all assigned missions while providing the 1st Marine Division (1st MarDiv) with a robust, highly capable combat engineer resource. While overall success was enjoyed by the battalion, it is worth examining several issues encountered during this experience in order to ascertain if this was, in fact, the best way to employ the combat engineers. This article will provide such an examination and will offer some lessons learned for consideration if such combination is to be planned for in the future.
Other battalions combined for OIF, such as the amphibious assault battalions, but none combined and integrated to the extent as the CEBs that merged two staffs so that there was only one commanding officer (CO), executive officer (XO), S–1 (personnel), and so forth. Even our name changed to “Combat Engineer Battalion” with no number designator of 1st or 2d CEB.
The combined CEB was distributed in support of more than 12 separate battalions. It was comprised of more than 1,100 Marines and sailors completing missions ranging from bridge and route reconnaissance, improving the mobility along Highway 1, breaching and clearing mines, sensitive site security, clearing airfields, fighting as infantry, building bridges, collecting and destroying weapons caches, and conducting civil-military operations and humanitarian assistance.
1st, 2d, and 4th CEBs met in December 2002 to finalize how the battalions would organize for combat. The 1st MarDiv commanding general’s sole mandate was that he wanted one point of contact for the engineers; specifically, the CO, 1st CEB would assume the role as the division engineer officer. This requirement essentially allowed the CEBs two courses of action (COAs). First, attach each CEB to a regimental combat team (RCT), or secondly, combine the battalions under the CO, 2d CEB, and attach the letter companies to the RCTs. Collectively, we selected the second COA. Under this arrangement the letter companies were augmented with a robust heavy equipment/motor transport detachment, and the CEB personnel remaining—consisting of two headquarters and service (H&S) companies, two engineer support companies, and a combat engineer platoon—were consolidated and placed in general support of the 1st MarDiv. This slice of combat engineers would carry out separate missions but, more importantly, was available to reinforce the RCTs as required.
For each RCT we also decided to establish a regimental engineer cell led by a major who would coordinate the efforts of the combat engineer companies (two to three per regiment) and the support detachment. He would also become the primary advisor to the regimental commander for all engineer matters.
All CEB commanders agreed this was a solid plan, and everything was on track until January when the Marine Corps was unable to activate 4th CEB. This situation reduced the number of combat engineer companies by 50 percent. Fortunately, ground operations succeeded and occurred at the speed required by the force commander, but the engineers were definitely undermanned from the start. Without 4th CEB’s combat engineer companies we were only able to field four companies for the 1st MarDiv. (Company C, 2d CEB, supported RCT–1; Company B, 1st CEB, supported RCT–5; and both Companies C and D, 1st CEB, supported RCT–7. 2d CEB also attached Company A to RCT–2 as part of Task Force Tarawa.) We also decided to scratch the regimental engineer cell except for RCT–7, who was designated as the division’s initial main effort.
Combining two battalions provided a substantial combat engineer capability, but it also created some unforeseen consequences that should be addressed in the future before a decision is made to combine battalions. Specifically, there are four major issues: time, leadership, increased size of the H&S company, and the engineer capability with the RCTs. I will describe how the combined CEB dealt with each of these along with how we attempted to alleviate some of the challenges we had to face.
Time and the Impact of Unit Cohesion
We had 5 weeks until we crossed the line of departure. This was not a significant amount of time considering the majority of our effort was spent receiving equipment from strategic shipping and trying to integrate the new group into a cohesive unit. This effort occurs in every major deployment but not to the degree experienced by battalions deploying from opposite coasts. The inevitable consequence was reduced time available for the necessary detailed planning, immediate actions refinement, and conducting “what if” drills. Although we did accomplish these things within the 5 weeks prior to combat operations, our ability to do it to the depth desired was severely restricted because we also experienced significant growing pains trying to determine who we were as a combined unit and who was the best qualified for particular requirements.
OIF was a I Marine Expeditionary Force fight with 2d MarDiv serving as a force provider (with the exception of 2d Marine Expeditionary Brigade and Task Force Tarawa). Although 2d CEB had been involved in most of the planning and coordinated with 1st CEB in deciding how to outfit the combined battalion with personnel and equipment, we continued to work off of the 2d MarDiv training schedule until December 2002. Our focus did not totally shift to OIF until Combined Arms Exercise 3/4 was canceled, and we knew with some degree of certainty that we were deploying to Southwest Asia.
Clearly, in the future, sufficient time must be allotted for the merged battalions to become a cohesive unit. If there is not enough time, then don’t combine the battalions. Ultimately, we made the combination work and did so with success. However, I believe there were other battalions, who had trained together for the past year, that were better synchronized.
There Will Be Leadership Changes and Challenges
When merging battalions it seems reasonable to assume that the combination of leadership will be a 50/50 split, but this was not the case for CEB. 2d CEB came in with some very senior staff. For example, we had three master sergeants, senior first lieutenants in most sections, and four major selectees. As a result 2d CEB took many of the senior billets within the combined battalion. Assigned as the commander I felt very comfortable with this outcome. After all, I had trained and deployed with my Marines for the past year during battalion- and division-level exercises at Fort AP Hill, VA and Camp Lejeune, and I knew their capabilities. More importantly, I knew how they would react under stress and in the absence of orders. I could not say the same about my sister battalion, since I knew few of their officers or staff noncommissioned officers (SNCOs) before meeting them either a few months prior or while in theater.
Merging of sections, such as the communications platoon, proved very challenging. Senior Marines were placed in senior billets and junior Marines who had done much of the planning became assistants. This became very frustrating and upsetting for some of them. Merging battalions will create a new command, and the mixture of the staff will never seem fair to all. Additionally, some junior leaders found difficulty in relinquishing their loyalties to their former superiors knowing that when the war was over they would serve for them again. Although most were professional and accepted the combined arrangement, there were some who eagerly sought out their previous bosses when the outcome of decisions was not to their liking. This was frustrating and had unsatisfactory impacts to say the least.
Both commanders of 1st and 2d CEBs were selected by a board to command their battalions and lead Marines. All of a sudden when it comes time to deploy, one is relegated to being a staff officer as the division engineer while the other is going to lead both battalions. If not for the division engineer cell, one commander may have been forced to work for the other. Only a very gracious and unselfish commander will relinquish his command to someone else, especially during time of war. Even so, the arrangement is bound to produce friction at some level.
Also very unique, the merging of the battalions accounted for two sergeants major. My hat goes off to both of them because they made the arrangement work. I do not know many sergeants major who are willing to share command, but these two gentlemen did so professionally and selflessly. The battalion was better served with both of them because we had two sets of eyes from the senior enlisted leadership. This arrangement was successful but could have been a catastrophe. During ground offensive operations my sergeant major went with me in the CEB forward, and 1st CEB’s sergeant major went with the battalion XO in the CEB main.
continued......