Army engineer support to U.S. Central Command's joint maneuver force during the Persian Gulf War was massive and critical. Over 100 active and reserve component engineer units contributed significantly to the success of Operation DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM. These contributions are well documented in Supporting the Troops: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Persian Gulf War. The Gulf War dramatically demonstrated the need to deploy engineers early so that they can determine the engineer requirements, communicate those requirements to the maneuver commanders, and take appropriate steps to bed down and sustain U.S. forces. The delayed flow of engineers and their equipment into Southwest Asia directly affected the ability of the maneuver units to sustain themselves and operate effectively. We are now moving toward a smaller, quality Army with rapidly deployable forces. There are fewer engineer units than in 1990, and a larger proportion of the engineer force is in the reserve components. As the active component force continues to shrink, we must insure that the reserve component engineer forces are well trained and ready to deploy on short notice. During the Gulf War engineers provided the model for the Total Army concept, successfully blending Active Army, Army National Guard, Army Reserve, and Department of Defense civilian engineer capabilities. U.S. forces could not have succeeded in the Gulf without the assistance of the reserve components and civilians. The force structure of today's Active Army does not include a number of specialized engineer units needed to support a large-scale deployment. Nor do operational engineer units have all the special expertise that can be found inthe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As Supporting the Troops vividly illustrates, the contributions of the Corps' military and civilian members were diverse and significant. Over 160 Corps civilians, who voluntarily deployed to Southwest Asia, provided procurement, design, construction, and real estate support. Corps members worked diligently, often in difficult conditions, to provide for the well-being and safety of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers. They devised creative solutions to the problems they, encountered, whether implementing new policies or developing new project designs. It was my privilege to serve with them in the Persian Gulf. Pat M. Stevens IV Major General, USA Acting Chief of Engineers

This collection of documents, including many previously unpublished, details the role of the Army engineers in the American Revolution. Lacking trained military engineers, the Americans relied heavily on foreign officers, mostly from France, for sorely needed technical assistance. Native Americans joined the foreign engineer officers to plan and carry out offensive and defensive operations, direct the erection of fortifications, map vital terrain, and lay out encampments. During the war Congress created the Corps of Engineers with three companies of engineer troops as well as a separate geographer's department to assist the engineers with mapping. Both General George Washington and Major General Louis Lebéque Duportail, his third and longest serving Chief Engineer, recognized the disadvantages of relying on foreign powers to fill the Army's crucial need for engineers. America, they contended, must train its own engineers for the future. Accordingly, at the war's end, they suggested maintaining a peacetime engineering establishment and creating a military academy. However, Congress rejected the proposals, and the Corps of Engineers and its companies of sappers and miners mustered out of service. Eleven years passed before Congress authorized a new establishment, the Corps of Artillerists and Engineers.

This paper focuses on the formulation of doctrine since World War II. In no comparable period in history have the dimensions of the battlefield been so altered by rapid technological changes. The need for the tactical doctrines of the Army to remain correspondingly abreast of these changes is thus more pressing than ever before. Future conflicts are not likely to develop in the leisurely fashions of the past where tactical doctrines could be refined on the battlefield itself. It is, therefore, imperative that we apprehend future problems with as much accuracy as possible. One means of doing so is to pay particular attention to the business of how the Army's doctrine has developed historically, with a view to improving methods of future development.