Battlefield Forensics: Dynamic Adaptation of a Company-Level Task Force

Battlefield Forensics: Dynamic Adaptation of a Company-Level Task Force by CPT Victor R. Morris fantry Division — while conducting operations. Thus the ETF mission truly became a combined-arms mission. Fierce ETF’s overall purpose was to rapidly secure, preserve and exploit enemy attack sites. The ETF’s platoon leaders facilitated security at and exploitation of sensitive sites once trained in the mission’s intent of taking advantage of a situation for tactical and/or operational gain. The mission included exploiting media, documents, explosives, ballistics, intelligence, biometrics and people of interest. ETF models The stated end state for ETF operations clarified a dual purpose: one overarching purpose was to implement an effective site-exploitation model, leading to further intelligence and targeting to assist and protect the ISF and local population; and the ETF’s second purpose was to establish an effective partnership with ISF to build their forensic and targeting capacities. We also hoped Fierce Company’s work would generate a concise model that U.S. advise-and-assist brigades could use during the responsible drawdown of forces.

The standard targeting methodology that Fierce Company used was itself modeled after “find, fix, finish, exploit, analyze, disseminate, prosecute,” or F3EAD-P. This model marked the first deliberate application of evidentiary-based targeting and detention at company level. The final step in the F3EAD-P targeting model, as mentioned, is prosecution. The intent of this step, of course, was to con-vict insurgents through the Central Criminal Court of Iraq. In this environment, forensics became the key component to aid in convictions when presented as evidence to Iraqi judges.

Task-organization changes Fierce Company introduced task-organization changes at platoon level based on the fundamental tenets of ETF operations:

• Analysis of the threat, combining offensive operations with the ISF;

• Maneuver-element responsiveness; and

• Sensitive-site exploitation. The platoons were primarily responsible for Tier I exploitation, analysis and dissemination. In some tactical scenarios, they assisted in finding, fixing and finishing the enemy. As the quick-reaction force, the platoons set the conditions for the combined exploitation cell and Joint expeditionary forensic facilities Tier II-III analysis and dissemination back to the brigade.

Because of Fierce Company’s mission change, the unit re-task-organized into three augmented maneuver elements. The company’s main efforts were the two 20-man maneuver anti-tank platoons. The headquarters platoon, led primarily by the fire-support officer, redirected intelligence analysis, enemy trend identification and CEXC device-profile tracking. Also, the company first sergeant, senior medic, platoon sergeant and commodities sections ensured the platoons were resourced with mission-essential equipment and had counter-improvised-explosive-device-related training.

Each of the platoon’s special teams had specified tasks and purposes related to the overall targeting model and concept of the operation. Each platoon augmented with a team of battlefield forensic specialists: explosive-ordnance-disposal team, weapons-intelligence team, law-enforcement professional and human-intelligence collection team. These external attachments combined with the platoon’s special teams, including a tactical-site-exploitation team and detainee-operations team. Next, each team integrated, rehearsed and executed specified tasks to maneuver units. The WIT was task-organized as part of an EOD team and was responsible for collecting evidence from IEDs and other explosives sites. This was done as a subsequent measure of the overall EOD post-blast analysis and assessment of the attack and type of munitions involved. The WIT also conducted technical analysis of recovered materials for biometric collection and analysis.

The LEP was attached to a platoon’s special teams. The LEP brought a developed understanding of forensics to the platoon. On the objective, the LEP was integrated into the DETOPs team. His experience allowed him to see a target’s house/attack site as a crime scene. Typically, the LEP advised the special teams and platoon leader after the EOD/WIT conducted their analysis. He focused the teams on local-national witnesses and guided the tactical questioning. He was also the subject-matter expert on point-of-capture operations and adherence to the U.S.-Iraq security agreement.

The HCT’s mission while conducting ETF operations was to conduct tactical questioning, atmospherics gathering and source operations at the site of recent significant activities. The HCT aimed tactical questioning at providing the unit with a more thorough understanding of the SIGACT and enemy actions related to it. Source operations, when practical, allowed identification and initial evaluation of potential sources, establishing relationships to build on through future engagements or meetings – the long-term goal was to provide actionable intelligence to USF or ISF.

The DETOPs team was a transformation of an enemy-prisoners-of-war team. This team specialized in security and small-unit tactics as they related to biometric identification. At platoon level, the DETOPs team secured the HCT and LEP as the mission dictated and deployed biometric identification-related equipment on the objective.

ETF operations The company ETF was thus reconfigured as an autonomous battlefield multiplier, capable of dynamically reacting to various SIGACTs in the OE. After initial company-level mission analysis, we outlined and realized tactical scenarios after 13 weeks of ETF operations. We based Fierce Company’s ETF model on QRF responses to tactical scenarios involving troops in contact or react-to-contact battle drills (unilateral and bilateral responses).

Following are tactical scenarios the ETF encountered during operations:

• Brigade and/or battalion TF element in contact, requiring ETF support;

• Brigade and/or battalion route-clearance patrol identified threat and requested ETF support;

• Non-organic brigade and/or battalion TF element in contact, requiring ETF support;

• ISF/host-nation security force in contact, requiring ETF support;

• ISF/local-national agency in contact, requiring ETF support (support to the government of Iraq regarding high-profile attacks in Baghdad during the 2010 election period);

• Special-operations element requiring EOD support after joint-raid or close-target reconnaissance;

• Non-military logistical convoy element in contact, requiring ETF support or vehicle recovery; and

• ISF battlespace-owner link-up after a successful cache seizure to facilitate higher-echelon exploitation. (This included the link-up, reception and transfer of explosive material from an ISF location to CEXC laboratories for analysis.) These missions required a variety of coordinating instructions. During execution of the ETF mission, platoons conducted 24-hour QRF rotations staged at an Iraqi army division’s joint security station, further enabling partnership, access and an opportunity for joint responses. Staging time was based on threat analysis and enemy IED emplacement windows. Fierce Company’s headquarters remained at the command post and executed command-and-control operations as required. The CP facilitated higher-echelon reporting, enabler support, intelligence- and surveillance-asset management and logistical synchronization. The CP also enabled more frequent and detailed use of the Tactical Ground Reporting System for post-operation site-exploitation reports, SIGACT mapping, enemy trends and overall CEXC case tracking. Of course, company headquarters and the intelligence-support team remained at an elevated readiness status in the event multiple platoons deployed to multiple SIGACT locations.

Fierce Company ETF operations spanned the limits of the battalion’s sector. During multiple operations, Fierce Company’s platoons crossed adjacent battalion boundaries and coordinated with adjacent units. This freedom of maneuver allowed the company to partner with multiple Iraqi-army battalions across two Iraqi-army brigade sectors and to foster a positive working relationship. This relationship led to requests for support and information dissemination from Iraqi-army battalion commanders. Through this interaction, Fierce Company was able to coordinate directly with the battlespace owner while simultaneously relaying information to the Joint operations center and battalion’s tactical operations center. The vertical and parallel reporting via multiple mediums directly contributed to the mission’s effectiveness.

Full-time ETF matters The ability to execute the ETF mission full time was decisive to the brigade’s and battalion’s campaign plans for many reasons. One, after Fierce Company received the mission, the unit began immediately to exploit IEDs and explosively formed penetrators along one of the main supply routes in the battalion’s sector – these devices presented a significant threat to USF traveling the route. This shift in mission was a brigade initiative to target the insurgent network and get “left of the boom” in the post-June 30 OE.

Two, both the brigade and battalion commanders were adamant about expeditionary forensics and their relationship within the brigade prosecution TF model, which directly corresponded to ISF partnership and capacity-building. The commanders’ intent was translated at all levels as platoons responded to SIGACTs in the OE.

Three, full-time ETF enabled the platoons to offer SSE for a dual purpose. The first purpose was to secure the site and support the unit in contact. The second purpose was to deploy the platoon’s special teams to exploit the site. The special teams used a variety of sources to concisely assess the attack; the ETF was able to assess the type of device, method of emplacement angle, method of initiation, location of initiation, battle damage associated with the device and biometric evidence.

Four, each element’s work was vital. The HCT and LEP exploited local-national witnesses and received reports from ISF in the area. Once the site was cleared, the ETF confiscated any forensic material from the attack for analysis. The CEXC received that material for analysis after Tier I analysis was completed. Depending on the incident’s priority, a CEXC case could be populated in 24 to 36 hours, with biometric analysis following. If there was a biometric match, the unit began the Acronym Quick-Scan CEXC – combined exploitation cell CP – command post COE – contemporary operating environment DETOPs – detainee operations EOD – explosive-ordnance disposal ETF – exploitation task force F3EADP – find, fix, finish, exploit, analyze, disseminate, prosecute additional phases of the targeting cycle and preparation for warrant facilitation. The ETF’s role wasn’t limited to quick response to SIGACTs; for example, it collaborated with an Iraqi-army EOD battalion and executed joint training and responses.

ETF successes One of the main functions of the ETF’s exploitation focus was to liaise with EOD units to coordinate the transfer and follow-on analysis of cache materials seized during offensive operations. One event led to the analysis and exploitation of the largest IED cache found in the battalion’s OE. From April 13 to July 19, 2010, Fierce Company’s ETF facilitated creation of 29 CEXC cases for follow-on exploitation in conjunction with technical analysis to protect against remote-detonated IEDs. Also, one of the ETF platoons biometri-cally confirmed the identity of an al-Qaeda-in-Iraq leader after the Iraqi army detained him and he was transported to a hospital. The ETF’s quick-response mission enabled higher-echelon leaders to coordinate joint interrogation and transfer the high-value individual to the proper authorities for prosecution. CPT Victor Morris is a doctrine analyst with the SBCT Warfighters’ Forum, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. An Armor officer commissioned from the University of Arizona ROTC program in 2004, he formerly commanded Fierce Company, 52nd Infantry Regiment, 4th SBCT, 2nd Infantry Division. He has been part of 4th SBCT since 2005, serving as a Stryker Mobile Gun System platoon leader and rifle platoon leader in B Company, 1st Battalion, 38th Infantry Regiment, during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2007-08. He also served as assistant S-3 for 1-38 Infantry after redeploying to Iraq in 2008. HCT – human-intelligence collection team IED – improvised explosive device ISF – Iraqi Security Forces JEFF – joint expeditionary forensic facilities LEP – law-enforcement professional OE – operating environment QRF – quick-reaction force SBCT – Stryker brigade combat team SIGACTs – significant activities SSE – sensitive-site exploitation TF – task force USF – U.S. forces WIT – weapons-intelligence team Soldiers gather evidence on the battlefield. (U.S. Army photo)