U.S. Army Agriculture Development Teams, Afghanistan: The Role of the Geoscientist

  • Alexander K. StewartEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Military Geosciences book series (AMG)


In the spring of 2008, the National Guard Bureau and the U.S. Army began employing a new counterinsurgency tool in Afghanistan—Agriculture Development Teams (ADT). These specialized, egalitarian U.S. Army teams, consisting of 12 soldier-expert hybrids, work directly with Afghanistan officials and farmers to support their agricultural needs. ADTs provide agriculture-related education, training and sustainable projects, which are U.S. funded and locally operated and maintained.

For the Texas ADT, geoscientists are generalists working in three areas: (a) Hydrology, (b) Education and (c) Geology. Hydrologically speaking, control, conservation and management of spring snowmelt from the Hindu Kush is vital to farming and livestock management, so delay-action dams, gabion structures and irrigation projects were developed. In response to village concerns, a dam assessment and hazard-mitigation program was developed and implemented. Team geoscientists also helped in watershed delineation and the selection of dam emplacement locations. With respect to education, university- and high-school-level support and training projects are also developed and implemented. Genuine geology-based projects were atypical due to overall security and time constraints; however, Texas ADT geoscientists completed remote sensing of chromite mineral resources in their area of operation.

Overall, ADT geoscientists are essential for mission success because of their flexible approach to problem solving, which is paramount in an ever-changing battle space where data and observations are limited to time, space and support. The role of a geoscientist in these teams varies depending on the unit’s deployed location and their commander’s intent. The success of an ADT geoscientist, however, is contingent upon the commander’s understanding of what a geoscientist IS and DOES!


Afghanistan U.S. Army Geoscience Agriculture Hydrology Hindu Kush 



This work is the result of the author’s experiences while a soldier-geologist hybrid with the Texas ADT in Afghanistan (2009). I would like to thank Angelo State University and St. Lawrence University (SLU) for their support while I was deployed to Afghanistan and travel funds to present this work (SLU). Thank you to two anonymous reviewers for improving this manuscript. I would also like to thank, CPT Neal Litton, Texas ADT team leader, for sparking my memory where/when mine was lacking, SFC Robert Becknal and SGT Todd Plybon my fellow geoscientists and, most importantly, to my brothers in arms, SSG Christopher N. Staats (Fig. 7, left) and SGT A. Gabriel Green (right), both Killed in Action 16OCT09, Ghazni Province, Afghanistan, without whom the motivation to promulgate this work would not have existed.


  1. Army Training Requirements and Resources System (ATRRS) (2013) Course catalog. Accessed Jan 2013
  2. Burroughs MA (1979) Gabions: economical, environmentally compatible erosion control. Civ Eng 49(1):58–61Google Scholar
  3. Campise RL, Geller SK, Campise ME (2006) Combat stress. In: Kennedy CH, Zillmer EA (eds) Military psychology: clinical and operational applications. Guilford Press, New York, pp 215–240Google Scholar
  4. Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL) (2009) Agribusiness development teams in Afghanistan: tactics, techniques and procedures: Handbook, no. 10-10, 100 pGoogle Scholar
  5. Department of the Army (DoA) (2006) Counterinsurgency: field manual 3-24, 280 pGoogle Scholar
  6. Ezzat AM (2001) A comprehensive report on the damages of Band-e-Sultan or (Band-e-Saraj): report to the Danish Committee for Afghan Aid to Refugees, 11 pGoogle Scholar
  7. Frodeman R (1995) Geological reasoning: geology as an interpretive and historical science. Geol Soc Am Bull 107(8):960–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guth PL (1998) Military geology in war and peace: an introduction. In: Underwood JR Jr, Guth PL (eds) Military geology in war peace (Geological Society of America reviews in engineering geology), vol XIII. pp 1–4Google Scholar
  9. Hippensteel SP (2011) Barrier Island geology and union strategy for the assault and siege of Charleston, South Carolina, 1862–1863. Southeast Geol 48(1):23–25Google Scholar
  10. Kastens KA, Manduca CA, Cervato C, Frodeman R, Goodwin C, Liben LS, Mogk DW, Spangler TC, Stillings NA, Titus S (2009) How geoscientists think and learn: Eos, transactions. Am Geophys Union 90(31):265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kiersch GA, Underwood JR Jr (1998) Geology and military operations, 1800–1960: an overview. In: Underwood JR Jr, Guth PL (eds) Military geology in war peace (Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology), vol XIII. pp 1–27Google Scholar
  12. Matz RL, Rothman ED, Krajcik JS, Banaszak Holl MM (2012) Concurrent enrollment in lecture laboratory enhances student performance retention. J Res Sci Teach 49(5):659–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nagal JA, Sharp T (2010) Operational for what? The future of the guard and reserves. Jt Force Q 59:21–29Google Scholar
  14. Nasrat A, Sharifzad MJ (2005) Afghanistan’s melting snows kill 14, displace thousands. Accessed Jan 2013
  15. Papp JF, Lipin BR (2006) Chromite. In: Kogel JE, Trivedi NC, Barker JM, Drukowski ST (eds) Industrial minerals and rocks-commodities, markets, and uses, 7th edn. AIME, Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., pp 309–333Google Scholar
  16. Powell W, Leveson D (2004) The unique role of introductory geology courses in teaching quantitative reasoning. J Geosci Educ 52(3):301–305Google Scholar
  17. Risen J (14 June 2010) U.S. identifies vast mineral riches in Afghanistan. New York Times. Accessed Jan 2013
  18. Stewart AK (24 July 2009) Band-e Soltan masonry dam assessment: Department of the Army, Texas Agribusiness Development Team-02, Memorandum for Record, LC-IDA-TXADT, 10 pGoogle Scholar
  19. Stewart AK (2010) Soldier-Geologist hybrid: part of an innovative U.S. army counterinsurgency method in Afghanistan. Geol Soc Am Abstr Programs 42(5):604Google Scholar
  20. Stewart AK (2011) U.S. Army agribusiness development teams. Afghanistan: the role of geology and geoscientists: International Conference on Military Geosciences, 9th Biennial Meeting. Abstracts, Las Vegas, Nevada, pp 106–107Google Scholar
  21. Stewart AK (2012) Geological reasoning the counterinsurgency: can training in geology advantage the next-generation soldier? Geol Soc Am Abstr Programs 44(7):100Google Scholar
  22. Turner RL (2010) Agriculture development teams and the counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan: U.S. Army War College Strategy Research Project, 24 pGoogle Scholar
  23. US Army (2012) Army National Guard (ARNG) Agribusiness Development Teams (ADT). Posture statement Accessed Jan 2013
  24. Winters HA, Galloway GE, Reynolds WJ, Rhyne DW (1998) Battling the elements: weather and terrain in the conduct of war. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, p 317Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.143rd Infantry DetachmentLong-Range Surveillance (LRSD), 36th Infantry DivisionGhazniAfghanistan
  2. 2.Department of GeologySt. Lawrence UniversityCantonUSA

Personalised recommendations