I'm not saying dumb the standards down - keep the standards the same - the minimum these days are pretty low on all accounts. If you want to do the job, meet the standard - whatever the standard is. If we say we need Infantry with higher GT scores, or better language proficiency at what point do those become standards? I think its an important question, not because its about gender, but because we are rethinking what we value most in those MOSs and leaders.

Where do we strike the balance between "you either have to be smart or strong, so hand me my rucksack"? I'm not sure. What of emotional strength - the ability to endure harsh conditions and persevere? How do you measure some of those things?

I agree with you about extending beyond leadership and culture, but I do believe its leadership that turns things around, makes positives out of negatives, mitigates risk while acknowledging it, and creates opportunities where non may have existed.

When we're discussing what capabilities we need in this war where so many value judgments are required and where people are emphasized over technology, the questions are going to come up. Even if we said we were going to create more Maneuver Enhancement BDEs with lots of MPs (or anything else but BCTs) to meet the capabilities requirements we expect in the next decade or two, those formations will still be out there.

Where are we willing to accept risk? Do we think we will ever be as logistically challenged as we were in WWII or Korea? How has good tech enabled us to improve the life of the Infantry? What are the values to be gained vs. the negatives?

I just think we may want to consider it from all angles before we resign ourselves to maintaining things. If in light of all that the powers that be decide that its still true and that the benefits don't clearly out weigh the costs, or that culturally we just can't do such things, then that is the way it has to be - in fact that is where we're at right now in terms of policy. However, it may be time to consider all of the options and not just those regarding organizational, doctrinal and material options when it comes to thinking about the future.

Best Regards, Rob