In the article "Battalion Intelligence", the author makes a case for assigning an Engagement Officer at the Battalion level. The author bases his argument in the need to track key leader engagements and the need to ensure that there is a coherent flow between meetings. Unfortunately the author goes awry when he suggests that the Engagement Officer should be holding the preponderance of Key Leader Engagement (KLEs) and could be assigned outside of the S-2.
As an inherent intelligence function, the S-2 should be tracking key KLEs as part of the development of the situation. To task the Information Officer (IO) with being the Engagement Officer would remove that individual from a position where intelligence is used to target key leaders and key audiences to a position that merely collects and catalogs information.
In recent years, the Army's IO doctrine has shifted and now makes engagements a function of the tactical IO Officer. This shift has pushed Army tactical IO to the point that it is unrecognizable from what Joint and Marine IO describes. Some of the shift is due to parochialism within IO core capabilities of the Army but the shift is largely the result of not incorporating KLEs into the ongoing IPB.
To assume that one single Marine that is not in a command position can roam the battlefield and exclusively hold important meetings with powerbrokers is lofty and unrealistic. Company Commanders and Platoon Commanders develop the relationships within their AO and are responsible for the identification and engagement of Key Leaders. The S-2 must work with these commanders to build the necessary understanding to both track engagements and provide the analysis that allows the Battalion Commander to develop the situation.
Capt Miranda, here a link to the article for others who wish to respond: