Military Review English Edition September-October 2014 - Page 112

resilience.”12 The general point the author intended to make is clear, but the verbiage used creates an absolute postulation and does not account for an inevitable standard deviation. A different example concerns the use of aptitude test results to select soldiers for the most appropriate jobs. He states that soldiers “placed into optimal jobs will work together better as teams.”13 The overall argument is accurate, but similar technical aptitudes may not be an infallible predictor of enhanced teamwork and productivity. A final deficiency is Matthews’ perspective on baseline physical fitness standards. His discussion on the topic implies disagreement with standardized assessments of physical fitness. Although he clearly highlights the positive psychological benefits of physical fitness for overcoming obstacles, Matthews also argues that new technologies require enhanced cognitive skills. His implicit argument that technical skills may be of more importance than physical attributes results in a claim that “the relevance of a one-sizefits-all physical training standard may be called into question.”14 This premise is false; the Army physical fitness standards are not currently one-size-fits-all. Alternate events and standards exist for individuals with legitimate physical limitations such as injuries. For those who do not possess physical limitations, the baseline standard exists as a measure of performance and a degree of separation from the average U.S. citizen. I predict that the military of 2030 and beyond will not want average U.S. citizens, but those who can be molded to become above average in all dimensions (to include the physical). Overall, Matthews presents a well-structured, relevant, and multidimensional argument a