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