EOD doctrine: why we need it.

• Author: Tranchemontagne, Marc
• Position: Readers' Forum

* In the September article, "Combat Experience of Bomb Disposal Teams Should Be Codified," Jeff Trumbore made a compelling argument for joint EOD doctrine to capture lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan so that that we might not have to learn the hard way again, "on-the-fly," at great cost in future conflicts.

It is an important and timely discussion. If we are to develop joint EOD doctrine--and we should be clear that we are talking about operational level doctrine, not tactics, techniques and procedures--we ought to consider what it should address.

Many of the lessons relate to IEDs, but we already have joint counter-IED doctrine, so do we need EOD doctrine as well? The short answer is "yes."

First, many of the doctrinal les- sons related to IEDs, such as how we organize joint EOD forces, apply broadly to EOD activities in general, not just countering lEDs. Second, the doctrinal publications that do address EOD, such as Joint Pub 3-34, Joint Engineer Operations, are incomplete in their treatment of EOD and are not an obvious place for planners to look for information on its capabilities. And third, the EOD career field has grown dramatically since its inception in 1941, and more than 70 years of expanding roles and missions have never been codified in joint doctrine. With the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan fresh, now is the time to redress this deficiency.

Interservice Responsibilities for Explosive Ordnance Disposal, issued in 1992, addresses some doctrinal roles, but telling a joint force commander that Navy EOD handles any ordnance found seaward of "the high water mark" while Army EOD covers "the land mass areas" does not provide him much useful information. A joint force commander needs to know why he needs EOD troops and how he is going to control them.

Although all EOD technicians attend the same core training at the Naval School Explosive Ordnance Disposal, each of the services takes a different approach to organizing, training and equipping its EOD forces. Joint doctrine would make those differences plain and articulate their relevance to planners.

Joint doctrine helps to define roles and missions, in other words, who does what. For example, the line between the doctrinal roles of combat engineers and EOD is not always clear, even though their capabilities vary greatly. Combat engineers breach minefields while EOD teams render safe and exploit IEDs, but who should clear roads of IEDs? In Iraq and Afghanistan, we experimented...