SECTION
III Establishing
the ZOS (cont)
Establishing the ZOS (cont)
TOPIC: Marking the ZOS.
DISCUSSION: The boundaries of the ZOS had to be clearly marked as defined by the maps and documents agreed to as a part of the GFAP. This was accomplished through the supervision of factions and TFE units marking those boundaries specified in the manner outlined. At the end of the process, both the factions and TFE units would be able to clearly identify the respective lines and zones, the IEBL and ACFL ZOS.
Marking of the zones and lines was at times selective. Selective marking was defined as where lines cross a road, track, or rail line. Attempting to mark the entire extent of the line was often unnecessary and logistically prohibitive. The zones were marked in frequently trafficked areas so that the entities and TFE could rapidly and definitively establish their locations.
The marking system was comprised of temporary and semi-permanent markers. As a rule, where the ACFL and IEBL coincide and no adjustment was necessary, and where suitable survey/verification means exist, semi-permanent markers would be used immediately. The remainder of the lines was marked with temporary markers since the lines shifted during the implementation period.
For OJE, the ACFL ZOS had to be marked by D+30. Marking was done where roads went through the ZOS. Markings at each location consisted of florescent orange-tipped U-shaped pickets on both sides of the road. The ACFL ZOS pickets had the top 12" painted florescent orange. The ACFL itself was marked with pickets that had the top 12" painted florescent orange, a 12" gap and another 12" of florescent orange (see enclosure). Areas other than roads that required marking were marked in a similar manner as directed by local TFE/FWF commanders. All markers had to be positioned so they were clearly identifiable (100m in daylight) from both directions of travel.
The IEBL ZOS was selectively marked with semi-permanent survey markers, as procured and provided by Headquarters, Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC). They were 2-meter high robust orange survey poles, capped with a triangular orange top and secured to a steel base which was semi-permanently attached to the ground. Where the ACFL ZOS line and the IEBL were close together, the Military Commission process was used to achieve agreement on where to establish the outer line only as a common ZOS line. The same requirements for positioning the ACFL markers applied to the IEBL markers.
All entities were required to mark the ACFL, IEBL and the respective ZOS lines under IFOR supervision. Upon activation of the IEBL, all the ACFL ZOS markings had to be removed, painted over, or erased.
TFE provided the material to the entities to mark the various lines and zones. The task force initially had more than 500 liters of orange paint and 500 paint brushes available for distribution. Brigades were authorized to draw the following quantities of supplies: 100 gallons of paint, 100 brushes, and 500 pickets.
|
TOPIC: Minefield Marking.
DISCUSSION: The brigades issued the Hand-Emplaced Mine-Marking System (HEMMS) kits to the former warring factions to mark minefields in TFE AOR.
According to the GFAP, the FWF were responsible for marking and clearing minefields. In almost all cases, they did this to the best of their ability, but they did not have the resources to properly mark minefields. In some cases, they marked minefields with crossed branches, stacked stones, and other various nondoctrinal means. The decision was made to issue the HEMMS kits to the former warring factions to establish an easily recognizable standard for marking minefields. The standard HEMMS kit consists of: 64 X Aluminum HEMMS poles, 2 X Rolls of red marking tape, 64 X Red "Mine" signs, a light set to attach to the top of the poles, and pole drivers. The kit can mark approximately 650 linear meters of minefield. With the amounts of minefields located throughout the AOR, TFE also augmented the HEMMS kits with rolls of barbed wire and standard pickets in an attempt to make up for the shortage of HEMMS kits.
|
TOPIC: Tracking the Progress.
DISCUSSION: During OJE each faction had to implement very specific requirements under the GFAP mandating the operation. As the factions began to meet the provisions of the peace agreement, a systematic method of tracking compliance was required to provide feedback, monitor progress and to assess deficiencies of each faction commander.
TFE developed a simple system to report the status of the peace agreement compliance within the zone of separation (ZOS). The system delineated segments of the ZOS and established a reporting system to track the status of routes, separation of factions, removal of mines, and marking of the ZOS and other boundary lines.
The ZOS was divided into blocks based on checkpoints. A ZOS block was defined in length as the area between two adjacent checkpoints and further defined in width by points located on each two-kilometer line running parallel to the ACFL and the IEBL. For simplicity, the block was defined by the lower number checkpoint. For example, the block of land between checkpoint Z22 and Z23 was referred to as ZOS Block Z22. The land between ZOS checkpoint Z61 and Z62 was referred to as ZOS Block Z61.
Each brigade was required to report the status of each ZOS Block using a red, amber, green protocol. Green reflected full peace agreement compliance (90 percent or more completed and expected to be completed within required timeframes). Amber reflected partial compliance, but the factions were well underway with the assessment that they are willing to comply. Red reflected a complete noncompliance with the requirements of the GFAP with no willingness to comply.
The following specific color criteria were used to report the status of each ZOS Block:
- Routes. The ZOS Block was rated green for routes if 90 percent or more of each Task Force Eagle-designated crossing site, and each crossing site designated by the IFOR sector brigade commander, was free of all mines, obstacles and faction check points. The block was amber if efforts were underway and there was an assessed willingness to comply. The block was red if it was assessed that there was no willingness to comply with the requirements to clear the routes within the block.
- Separation. The ZOS block was rated green for force separation if 90 percent or more of the faction units and their military weapons were withdrawn from the ZOS. The block was amber if separation/withdrawal was ongoing and there was a willingness to comply. When a faction(s) exhibited no willingness to comply with the separation requirement, then the block was rated red.
- Mines. ZOS Blocks were rated green for mine clearance if they had 90 percent or more of the mines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) marked and being cleared. The block was amber if there were known mines or UXO being marked/cleared and there was an assessed willingness to comply. If there was no willingness to comply with the requirement to clear/mark the mines and UXO, the block was rated red.
- Marking. The status for the selected marking of the ACFL/IEBL within a ZOS block was not reported as a color status. Instead, units were to report the number of stakes emplaced within the ZOS block.
The division required the brigades to submit an initial ZOS block status in their commander's assessment report (ASSESSREP).
An example of the ZOS block report status is shown below:
| ZOS BLOCK | ROUTES | SEPARATION | MINES | MARKING |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Z30 | 1) GREEN | 2) AMBER | 3) AMBER | 4) 12 |
| Z31 | 1) GREEN | 2) GREEN | 4) GREEN | 4) 36 |
After the initial status was reported, brigades would only submit changes to each ZOS block in the ASSESSREP. Commanders were required to comment on any area rated other than green.
|
TOPIC: Battle-Tracking the Status of Cleared Routes.
DISCUSSION: As the sector developed and the number of reconnoitered and cleared routes increased, it became necessary to develop a plan for maintaining the status of all of the routes. It was necessary to guard against the factions returning and relaying mines. It was also necessary to declare certain routes open only to one-way traffic due to the narrowness of the roads. Other routes may have only been usable for certain types of vehicles due to battle damage (e. g., tracks only or tactical vehicles only). Some routes had to be blocked off completely until engineer units could restore the surface of the road. For whatever reason, the mission of the TFE soldiers initially was to enable freedom of movement through the ZOS. Patrol plans had to be developed that would gather the necessary information on routes after they had been cleared to minimize collateral damage from military traffic while ensuring security for civilian and commercial traffic. The information gathered from the reconnaissance plan had to be analyzed daily, collated and sent up the reporting nets to higher headquarters. It had to then be made available for all units that use the roads in sector so that further damage to roads or equipment could be avoided.
| LESSON LEARNED: Develop patrol plans to confirm or deny the status of routes. |
One
of the faction leaders asserted that he would order his soldiers to detain
any TFE element that was identified escorting another faction's soldiers through
the ZOS. Though agreements were made during a JMC for coordinated escorts,
the remark was made to a CA team who communicated the message to his battalion
commander. This resulted in a "show of force" by the commander. Upon
receiving the information from the CA team leader, the battalion commander
assembled a Bradley platoon and coordinated for a Scout Weapons Team (AH1 and
OH58) to move to the location. A six-BFV QRF was placed at REDCON 1 and staged
2 kilometers from the faction HQ awaiting orders. He notified the CA team leader
that he, along with his escort, was enroute to meet with the faction commander.
With the air presence on station, the commander, along with the M2 platoon,
arrived to the faction headquarters to discover the commander had left the
area. The TFE battalion commander communicated to the faction LO on site, that
such action by the faction would not be tolerated. Later that day, the faction
commander told the brigade commander that there had been a misunderstanding
and that TFE soldiers would not be detained. |
Section
III: Establishing the ZOS, Part 1
Section
IV: The Verification Process
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
