 To me, it's important because it makes sure that everyone has a seat at the table. You know, when we're entering into a decision as a U.S. government, I think it's important that we have every perspective and every source of information, and if we're sort of negating or ignoring 50 percent of the population, and in some cases more than 50 percent, we're not dealing with a full deck. And I think it's much more difficult for us to fully assess any situation, take any action without those perspectives, and understanding the impacts of what the decisions we make will have on full populations, not only segments of a population. So to me, WPS means just complete inclusivity, having everyone with a seat at the table with an equal voice, and taking advantage of the wealth of resources that for far too long historically a segment of our population just hasn't had voice, and it's giving voice to the voiceless. It's a good question, especially for me coming in here sort of as a relative outsider as a diplomat in a soldier's world. But what I have seen over my time here as a student and working here this past year is, for me, WPS in a military perspective is making sure that we have women at the table again, making the decisions, contributing to the decisions, providing information and perspectives to their senior leaders, so that those leaders have the full understanding of what they're facing without knowing. There's too many examples in the past when certain voices have been left out and those populations are the ones that suffer the most, from Bangladesh flooding to any kind of disaster relief. It's usually women and girls and boys too who are the vulnerable population. So to me in the DOD sector that is so responsible for so much of the world's security, it's just important to have a critical mass of women at every level of the decision making, every level of participation, and every level of leadership from the lowest person down to the top. And right now, unfortunately, we don't see that globally or even here in the United States. My time here again trying to keep this centered more in the military world because this is the audience I'm speaking to, I've seen several examples personally of my female counterparts in class who have explained and described missions that they've been on or actions that they've taken that they were uniquely positioned to do and their specific presence in this mission is what led to the success of the mission. I've seen numerous cases where my Marine colleagues have talked about the time they spent in Afghanistan where they were a part of mixed gender teams that were much more effective in reaching town leadership, getting access to local populations rather than homogenous teams because for whatever reason, certain members of the population felt more comfortable with the women. They felt they could trust them. They felt inherently more comfortable with them. And I feel like because the women had the ability to enter into these communities, the information that they brought back were things that perhaps their male counterparts weren't able to do because they didn't have the same access. So these are just some simple examples during wartime but peacetime within the war, ceasefire at least, when having a mixed gender team was much more effective and they're much more capable of sort of entering parts of society that I think, depending on the society that we're working in, may be more difficult or more inaccessible for men. So to me, I feel like that's just one small example, so imagine that level of access at every level.