Thank you for the question.
I think that you hit on it there. One of the key issues, I believe, is that the underlying principles that were used in the Leigh Fisher report were not socialized, were not completely agreed to by the commanders of the army, navy, and air force. The actual study itself was not as scientifically rigorous as we're undertaking right now. As a result of that, when the report was presented to the commanders, there was a significant amount of hesitation, of concern, that we'd be reducing the portfolio too much. As a result of that we went out, as I mentioned, and consulted with the grassroots, with the base commanders of the army, navy, air force, and wing commanders to determine what their operational need is.
This time around, we're taking a rigorous scientific approach to it. We have agreed-upon principles that I referred to earlier so that we have a solid framework to move forward with the army, navy, and air force so that, when we come out of it, we're going to have a recommendation that we can develop a portfolio based on operational requirements, based on our succession planning needs, and based on other obligations we have to foreign militaries and to our ill and injured members. When we have this framework that we can move forward on, we're going to have a much better product, and a product that's going to instill confidence in the commanders of the army, navy, and air force that we're going to be able to take care of the families that we need to.