ࡱ> NO ON Z mWNNNNNNNN}N{N9:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefgyN=3>3?3@3A3B3C3E3F3G3H3I3J3K3L3M3N3O3P3Q3R3S3T3U3V3N8@NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN~N|NzN  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~NNNNNNNN N N N N NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN N!N"N#N$N%N&N'N(N)N*N+N,N-N.N/N0N1N2N3N4NN:N;NN?N@NANBNCNDNENFNGNHNINJNKNLNMNNNONPNQNRNSNTNUNVNWNXNYNZN[N\N]N^N_N`NaNbNcNdNeNfNgNhNiNjNkNlNmNnNoNpNqNrNsNtNuNOOOOOOOO O OvN OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!O"O#O$O%O&ONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOning assumptions require a change in the strategy. Strategic surprise need not occur as a result of totally unexpected events. Rather, it could be a development over time that is: --Not recognized and therefore not acted upon. --Recognized but the ability to act upon it is culturally or politically impossible. --Recognized but interpreted incorrectly. The Problem. The first game focused on the future strategic landscape to include the transformation of war and the impact of the elimination of forward based forces on future US strategy. This seminar explored the impact of changes in American culture and demography with a view toward identifying the impact upon the national security environment, national military strategy, and the roles and functions of the military services (specifically the Marine Corps). Our strategy depends upon the ability to recruit, train, and equip American men and women who are both technologically able and capable of accepting a uniquely American way of war that is heavily influenced by our values and national characteristics. However, our culture and demography are changing. Project Ellis is intended to explore the range of possibilities and, where possible, map the indicators that mandate a change in strategic direction. The following three potential pivotal events were specifically intended to be addressed in Ellis 2: --The demand for technically proficient Marines outstrips the supply of technically educated, physically fit Americans within the recruiting pool. [Problems recruiting sufficient technically qualified Marines without impacting the Marine ethos of every Marine a rifleman.] --Diversity and multi-lingual societies emerge as major characteristics of America with an increasing proportion of the population lacking traditional values and sense of a shared American identity. [Problems in governance, recruiting, and popular support of national policies result.] --The US homeland is no longer a sanctuary in international conflicts or from internal strife in other North American nations. [US territory is no longer inviolate due to open borders and/or instability on those borders, and proliferation of WMD available to both nation states and transnational organizations.] In discussing these potentially pivotal events, the following questions were used as a roadmap for discussion: --Are these in fact events or developments that would require a fundamental strategic change? --What events would provide advanced warning of these developments? --Are there actions that the US can take to avert these developments? --What kind of hedging actions could the US (or the Marine Corps) take to be better positioned to respond to changes in the domestic landscape? --What would be the likely impact of these events upon US strategic and military strategies? --How would these developments impact the Marine Corps? What hedging actions could the Marine Corps take to be in position to respond to the resulting change in the strategic landscape? OVERVIEW OF THE SCENARIOS. Seminar discussion was focused on the issues through discussion of four principal scenarios. The scenarios differed fundamentally in the degree of future US social cohesion, economics, diversity within the US population, and perception of global threat as it relates to the kind of US military the nation believes is required for national security. The scenarios were not intended to forecast alternative futures but rather to stimulate discussion and isolation of key factors in our current assumptions underpinning our strategy and military concepts. Social cohesion is used collectively to include such drivers as shared identity as Americans, a common sense of values, and trust in the social institutions of the state. The following chart depicts the key differences in the four scenarios. (The scenarios are developed in more detail in Appendix B; included are specific observations by the seminar participants on the specific factors in the four scenario cases.) ScenarioSocial CohesionEconomicsDiversityWorld ViewCase 1: "Let Someone Else Do It"Decreasing sense of individual and civic responsibility; reduced sense of identification with America.Strong economy shields Americans from seeking change.Diversity continues to be seen as a virtue; immigration provides cheap labor that fuels the economy. US still a global superpower but little sense that there are any challenges worth military investment.Case 2 "The American Century"Increasing sense of civic responsibility and interest; Americans rediscover America. Strong economy provides opportunities.Social issues are recognized but seen more as challenges to be solved by the group than a divisive force in society US still a global superpower with world responsibilities; America perceived as one part of a global community.Case 3: "Fortress America"Increases as a result of a shared sense of danger and social problems.Weak economy becomes American political and social focus.Immigration slows due to reduced economic opportunity.US turns inward to solve American problems first; little interest in foreign intervention.Case 4: "Balkanization of America"Decreasing identification with America and focus on regional affiliations. Strong economy provides opportunities and reduces friction between regions with differing prosperity.Regions in the US take on different ethnic and lingual identities; English is not the primary language used in some regions of the US. Regions within the US establish strong ties with populations in nations with similar ethnic concerns (LATAM and Asia). Availability of Technology-Capable Future Marines Technology One of the initial assumptions identified for assessment during the Ellis Project was that of the availability of sufficiently technologically capable Marines to carry out high-tech operational concepts. This issue, as it relates specifically to information technology (IT), was identified in a March 1999 high level seminar war game conducted at Stanford University coincident to the Urban Warrior Advanced Warfighting Experiment. In discussing the need for intuitive understanding of future information technologies, the game report indicated the following, If IT is to aid in hard on-the-spot decisions, the Marines will need an expanded base of IT and computer competence. In addition, the report indicated that the Marine concern about training above the entry level in networking etc., only to lose the trained cadres a few years later, can be partially solved by outsourcing. Participants in Ellis 2 did not share the concern about locating a sufficient pool of technology proficient recruits for a future high-tech Marine Corps. The consensus was that technology is becoming easier to use rather than more difficult. This phenomena parallels that of the mechanical age. It used to be that just to operate a motor vehicle required a degree of mechanical skill to complete operator maintenance and roadside repairs. Today's motor vehicles are so reliable -- and so computerized -- that most operators rarely consider any maintenance more than changing motor oil. The same is true for information technology. Five years ago, computer operation required a minimum working knowledge of DOS; today's user-friendly programs are designed to be self-taught and intuitive. Technology appears to be becoming easier to use rather than harder. Computer functions are being imbedded in virtually everything. Devices that include computer functioning perform functions transparent to the operator -- without any of the key strokes previously associated with computer operation. Troubleshooting and battlefield technology repair is being replaced by self-diagnostics and pull-and-plug component replacement. b. Values Ellis 2 participants identified the issue of values in future Marine recruits as a more problematic issue than technological proficiency. Our future concepts, with the emphasis on the strategic corporal and small unit operations in a highly complex battlefield typified by the three block war will provide imposing challenges. These concepts require a significant degree of independence than conventional operations and assume a much greater complexity in the battlefield. This will require greater degrees of moral courage, teamwork, and selflessness than required when individuals are part of larger formations in conventional battles. These specific values are not generally associated with the current Generation X military age group. For ease of discussion during Ellis 2, Generation X was defined using the description for the 13th Generation as defined by William Strauss and Neil Howe as born between 1961-1981 and characterized as having survived a hurried childhood of divorce, latchkeys, and open classrooms to emerge as pragmatic, nonaffiliated, self-centered, free-agents, who embrace free agency over loyal corporatism. This is a generation that has been described as high-tech nomads who think in terms of jobs rather than careers and today rather than tomorrow. In the military, 13er officers will flaunt a spartanlike warrior ethos. On campus, their laconic libertarianism will clash with the voluble liberalism of aging tenured professors. In contrast, the Millennial Generation was defined by Strauss and Howe as the generation having been born since 1982 during a period when the entire culture has become focused on protecting and nurturing children. This is a generation that is viewed positively by its parents and thus by itself. There are indications that it has a much greater confidence and idealistic identification. Statistically, this generation has already demonstrated better performance in schools and a stronger sense of values in virtually every measurable category as evidenced in the decreasing levels of violence indicated by the following charts.    This generation exhibits a strong sense of identification with institutions and historical legacy. This is a generation that is much more interested in history and our national institutional legacy than the previous generation. It has a stronger feeling of belonging and thus a greater sense of group identification and need for personal values. It seems to be much more prone to accept values compatible to Marine Corps core values (honor, courage, commitment) than the current generation. This may result in both improved disciplinary statistics as well as both individual and small unit performance on a future battlefield that places a premium on initiative and coordinated small unit operations. However, their interest in contributing to group and society may not extend automatically to traditional institutions of military service. Local institutions rather than federal institutions may be a preferred means of fulfilling this group identification and need to serve. There are indications that this generation associates such traditional military values as teamwork and leadership training with corporations such as Xerox or Microsoft. Likewise, volunteerism is likely to focus on local charities or environmental preservation service as it is to military service absent a perceived threat to the nation. Perhaps just as significant is the fact that this is the first generation that has grown up with the computer. In fact, a second generational model refers to the post X-generation as the net generation, in recognition of the impact that the explosion of net-related information technologies is having on society and culture. This model is based on the impact that facility with the net has on the characteristics of this generation. In most respects, these characteristics are not inconsistent with those of the millennials.  EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8   EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8  Regardless of whether the recruit generation is termed as millennials or N-gens, there are indications that the new recruits strongly endorse the concept of traditional values. The following two comparison charts provide the results of two values tests of Army recruits. The left slide was based on Moskos' measurements to identify Institutional versus Occupational Orientation. The second is a based on the Rokeach values items and measures the importance of traditional values.   EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8   EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8  Respondents asked to indicate "how important each issue is to you personally."  The following two charts measure how recruits assess the importance of values and the relative significance they place on job attributes. The left slide, also from LTG Ohle's brief, is a chart over time indicating how data is changing over time. (Note in most cases, results are indicating a greater emphasis on values.) The slide on the right provides some relative assessment as to which values are most important.   EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8   EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8   c. National Military Service Obligatory National Service was discussed as a hedging action in view of the reduced propensity of many young Americans to seek military service. The participants were split as to the desirability of such a move for improved military capabilities. National Service increasingly appeals to Americans. The millennias do not necessarily see the military as a preferred avenue for national service. National service would impact the way the Marine Corps recruits and trains its force. The impact would be least if the services are able to competitively recruit within the pool of obligatory national servers. Worse case would be the elimination of choice. Regardless, there would be an impact on initial recruit training due to the reduced initial service obligation.   EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8   EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8   There was no consensus that an all-volunteer military is necessarily better able to conduct future military operations than one that is predominantly made up through a draft or obligatory national service. Obligatory national service may have some military advantages: (1) military demographics would more closely represent the US populace at large, (2) there might be greater questioning of accepted military practices acceptance of standard operating procedures, and (3) the service experience would expand into the ranks of a wider range of future civilian leaders who would otherwise have not sought military service. However, as indicated in the previous slide, the military as a whole -- although not the Marine Corp specifically -- is unable to meet its current recruitment goals from the segment of the population that has a propensity for military service. Some form of inducement is required. The second slide indicates that this generation responds least to inducements related to adventure and travel. Instead, the implication is that most are interested in an adequately paid job with a high degree of personal freedom that they can be proud to claim as their own. Compulsory National Service would be unlikely to satisfy most of these personal attributes of an entry level job. However, it would impact the propensity percentages. Given a requirement for national service, more traditional value issues such as personal challenge, job satisfaction, and individual pride would become comparatively more significant. Military service could also include a pay premium over other national service. Seminar participants were intrigued of both the potential benefits and challenges of compulsory national service. One contributing factor was the implicit rejection of the military becoming mercenaries through calls to increase compensation as a bribe to attract recruits. The idea that military service is a selfless act of responsibility for able bodied citizenship was an issue for some participants. National service seemed to contribute to a return to this core value. Unresolved was the impact compulsory National Service would have on the Services and specifically the Marine Corps. It could result in shorter initial enlistments and thus place a premium on retaining career Marines for leadership positions. It could also lead to changes in organization, specifically with an advantage in greater outsourcing for support and service support functions, and a need to increase the number and quality of our combat leaders. Currently less than half of all Marines have combat arms occupational specialties and the percentage of Marines who are infantrymen is less than 15% of the entire strength (2,129 of 17,892 officers and 25,760 of 155,240 enlisted Marines). With less time to train and screen Marines for leadership positions, one key action the Marine Corps could take is to improve the effectiveness of screening, selection, and training of small unit leaders. Diversity and the Assimilation of Immigrants Immigration Immigration and an increasingly diverse US society may not pose a significant factor in developing a future cohesive Marine Corps capable of conducting OMFTS. Immigrants are adopting English and assimilating into American society at a rate significantly faster than at any time in American history. Bi-lingual education is losing favor within the US at the same time that immigrant children are achieving improving performance in our schools and universities. Language does not appear to be a problem. Nor could the participants easily accept a scenario in which major segments of the US population did not strive to speak English. This is in spite of the fact that one in every 10 residents of the United States today is foreign-born. This would be a major shift from a world trend of increasing English fluency driven in part by US cultural imperialism resulting from our pervasive Movie and print media but also because of the increasing use of English in the global economy and on the internet. The issue of identification with America did concern seminar participants. The concern was on two levels. First, was that of allegiance to the basic ideals associated with being American to include a work ethic and a sense of self-reliance. They also include a voluntary respect for national institutions associated with a functioning democracy. Many of these characteristics--to specifically include a respect for law and justice--is not universal. Second, was allegiance to the US as a nation, articulated as a sense of national identification as a fundamental requirement for social cohesion. This issue of personal identification may emerge as a significant issue if the percentage of Americans that identify themselves first as other than Americans continues to increase. Identification as Americans impacts recruiting some, but support for national policy more. Historically, the US has had large immigrant populations from ethnic groups politically antithetical to US interests such as the Germans during the World Wars, Japanese Americans during World War II, and more recently from Middle Easterners during the Gulf War. The fourth scenario made this a specific issue with the large Hispanic population within the US. Social Cohesion Balkanization of the US into regions with unique characteristics and increased separatist identification was a scenario that the seminar participants had difficulty imagining. Such scenarios in which US national policy is of special interest to a large ethnic minority (or potentially a majority) in a region should be reviewed further as they relate to social cohesion and internal security. Like the idea of the US becoming a non-dominant coalition partner in Ellis 1, this was a potential event that did not meet our current concepts of strategy and operational capabilities. The idea of Balkanization of America is not new. Arguably, the Civil War was a response to Balkanization. In addition, the Joel Garreau wrote about such a trend in America during the mid-1980s and Robert Kaplan has articulated this theme in some of his articles. In each case, immigration and the growth of ethnic majorities with identification with values not associated with the American experience played a key role. Ethnic enclaves have been a historic part of America's assimilation of immigrants. What's different now is an apparent move by the affluent and the specifically white Americans into enclaves in the west and mountain states. This move is in part a result of the developing internet economy that permits increased opportunities for work from home as well as an increasing focus of many Americans on family values and quality of life. Francis Fukuyama mused that the development of the internet may be a source for new forms of social stability through the universal access to two things that people need value most in a modern democracy--freedom and equality--and permitting new forms of social stability. Social cohesion is most vital to the ability of the US to meet adversity. Current prosperity and lack of individual security concerns makes social cohesion less of an issue. However, a deteriorating economy and a perceived failure of society to adequately provide personal protection could severely challenge American social cohesion. There is precedent in the response of the military to the disruption of the Great Depression and the initial loss of social cohesion. The military became a federal tool for organizing and conducting internal non-military programs designed to provide relief for millions of Americans. Overseeing public works was only a part of this function. Providing a visible sign of federal action was a confidence builder that contributed to a sense of national social cohesion. At the same time, the military is an immediate source of organization and capability for response to emerging threats associated with economic and internal security. In this regard, the military becomes by necessity a force for social cohesion and a tool for the federal government in conducting Homeland Defense. 8. Homeland Defense The issue of Homeland Defense should be divided into three distinct concerns. The most commonly associated issue is that of defense against terrorist attack -- specifically an asymmetrical attack on the US using WMD. Second, is the issue of internal security -- commonly associated with aid to US law enforcement to respond to urban disruption or natural disasters. Third is the issue of securing US borders when necessary against non-traditional threats -- such as a dramatic influx of illegal aliens. The participants discounted the first and second concerns. Both are recognized missions for the US military. Both have been the subject of various studies and are the subject of military exercises. USACOM specifically is tasked with developing the joint doctrine and organization to facilitate military support to civil authorities in response to these threats. Procedural and legal issues continue to plague effective military response but there are efforts in progress to facilitate better military support by both military unique organizations such as the Marine Corps Chemical- Biological Response Force (CBIRF). However, the participants indicated belief that problems were being addressed. The participants had much graver concern with scenarios in which the military was called on to secure the borders. Experiences such as the 1997 shooting of a shepherd by a Marine supporting JTF-6 drug interception operations created concern. Clearly military capabilities have applicability. Most significant concerns were related to legal and organizational issues. If the crisis evolves over time, these issues could evolve naturally. The most perilous scenarios occur when the influx is a result of a major dislocation that occurs with little or no warning. Various scenarios could result in such a crisis to include massive economic failure coupled with a collapse of the Mexican government. A major natural disaster occurring in Mexico City could be an additional triggering event. The most dangerous scenario would occur if such a major disruption on the US southern border masked asymmetrical attacks on the US homeland by an inimical foreign power or organization. As in the case of all domestic missions, participants were loath to advocate changing organization, training, and equipment of the Marine Corps from a primary Title X responsibility for sea-based, power projection in order to better respond to these missions. 9. Conclusions The common thread throughout the discussion was the importance of values issues in permitting the Marine Corps to adapt to the kinds of missions postulated in the scenarios. These issues came up when discussing the requirements for future Marines and what was needed to respond to new missions. Marines with a strong sense of core values are needed for a disciplined, adaptive, and highly useful force in any new scenario. Participants were emphatic that there remained a need to continue to emphasize values in recruiting, in training, and in screening for leadership positions. This is particularly true in our small unit leaders. Skills associated with the strategic corporal in dealing with the complexity of the three block war need to be honed. Improved screening for effective decision making skills under stress could contribute to better unit effectiveness in future non-traditional missions. Diversity and assimilation of immigrants were disregarded as less significant to the future than issues related to values and small units operating on the dispersed battlefield. Propensity to seek military service -- specifically as a Marine -- in the recruit age group should continue to be monitored closely. Balkanization of the US and the potential requirement for the US military to be used in domestic missions are difficult to accept. The difficulty participants found in discussing military response to these scenarios indicates the potential for strategic surprise. Accordingly, both are candidates for more comprehensive future war gaming. APPENDIX A -- SEMINAR PARTICIPANTS BGen Keith Holcomb, USMC (Ret.) Consultant Dr. Alexander Cochran Holder Chair of Military History, MCU Mr. Jim O'Brasky NWSC Dahlgren Lieutenant Colonel Jim Kuhn MCRC Major Scott O'Meara USACOM Lieutenant Commander Randy Mayer Wargaming Division, MCWL Mr. Harry Frank MCIA Mr. Greg Davis MCIA Mr. Frank Jordan Director, Wargaming Division, MCWL Col J. A. Lasswell, USMC (Ret.) GAMA Corporation. APPENDIX B -- SCENARIOS SCENARIO ONE: Social cohesion and individual responsibility decreases while the US continues to serve as a global superpower -- "let someone else do it"  In this scenario, the economic boom that is currently being experienced within the US continues well into the next century. The US continues as the world leader economically, technologically, and in military power. However, the growth of individualism and diversity within the US continues to emerge as the dominant characteristic of the first few decades of the 21st century. The Generation X influx into adulthood brings with it a decreasing sense of collective identity as Americans or of shared values. Individualism and cult of self results in a large segment of society rejecting social institutions. Americans focus on the individual's right to choose. The IT revolution leads to increasing economic polarization between the haves and the have-nots within the US. The result is an increased level of discontent, crime and violence, and cynicism as it relates to US social institutions. Emigration increases in response to the booming economy, providing cheap labor but adding to the pressures on the social framework. There is an increasing degree of alienation within many portions of the US population resulting in attempts by segments of the population to isolate themselves. Public education suffers. The military becomes increasingly perceived as different from society. Americans still perceive the need for a military but accept no personal responsibility. INTERACTION OF THE DRIVERS WITHIN THE SCENARIO CHRONOLOGY --The fundamental drivers in this scenario are the continuation of today's economic and social trends resulting in a society that is generally wealthier than today but with deep societal disaffection and divisions characterized by a value system that is self-centered and lacking in social responsibility. --This scenario forecasts a steady growth in the US economy that could result in a doubling of the GDP by the year 2025 if a 3% rate of growth is sustained. This period of prosperity permits continuation of social trends towards self-centered pursuit of wealth and satisfaction at the expense of social conscience. --Resulting disparities in wealth, opportunities, health care, standards of living, and education, among other things, contribute to a rising wave of discontent, cynicism, and violence. The government reacts with a mix of repression and minimal aid fueled by the strong economy. --Immigration remains high to support rapid economic growth. This fact increases social pressures, since most immigrants come in at the lower end of the earnings scale. --The economically advantaged, even while exhibiting compassion to some degree, largely isolate themselves from the problems of the poor. --Generation X values are even more pronounced in society. Cynicism and lack of confidence in social institutions lead to increased levels of violence and disaffection. --Society responds with an increased degree of isolation. Gated communities and like-minded communities emerge. Public education erodes with expanded use of private and home schooling becomes more prevalent. These developments lead to increasing polarization within society in education, values, and economic success. --The US continues to serve as the sole superpower due to its economic and technological dominance. However, Americans are generally non-participants in politics and respect for government institutions such as the military declines. --The values gap between the military and society as a whole continues to expand. As proposed by Tom Ricks, the US military institutionalizes different values on its recruits. It officer corps is both significantly more educated (40% with graduate degrees) and more conservative in their political views than ever before. --The military continues to be the most integrated of US institutions. The perception of a meritocracy appeals to minorities and recent immigrants. The military increasingly ceases to reflect society as a whole and instead expands its recruitment in selected segments of society. --The booming economy and reduced interest in social institutions results in difficulties of the armed services in meeting recruiting goals across the society as a whole. The various services respond differently, with some expanding the percentage of women, others reducing education, physical, and other qualification standards. --Technology continues to be a key characteristic of the US military dramatically expanding the demand for technologically proficient military members. --Globalism and expansion of real time news reporting continues to spur American interest in responding to global problems at the same time that success will be rapid and without impact on the average American. --The military is actively used in non-traditional tasks requiring discipline and sophisticated rules of engagement. Restraint and selective use of force is a vital characteristic in these situations under the constant threat of unconstrained violence. KEY ISSUES IN DISCUSSION: Importance of values in military readiness -- and specifically the American way of war. --Key issue within the Marine Corps senior leadership. General Mundy issued a book on values titled "Leading Marines" to express his views on the importance of "core values" in making what we think of institutionally as what separates a Marine from members of other Services. General Krulak introduced the "crucible" in recruit training to emphasize core values in the recruit "institutionalization" process. --Many senior Marines believe a "values" gap exits between recruits of before and those of today. This perception could be generational. "Generation X" recruits are perceived as self-centered, lacking in group identity, and without strong sense of right and wrong. This does not seem to be born out by various studies and polls to a significant degree. --The American way of war has historically been that of a crusade. There has been a demonization of the enemy followed by righteous wrath. Professors Samuel Huntington and Philip Weigley describe this in terms of the "citizen soldier" and the American disdain for standing professional militaries. --LTC Dave Grossman, AUS (Ret.) indicates that militaries used to have to be desensitized in order to kill. Many of the techniques for desensitization of violence are currently characteristic of our culture and the effects of the media on our young people. --Selflessness does not appear popular in the current generation; there are indications that the "Millenial" generation exhibit an increasing sense of group identification and a corresponding reduction in selfishness. Significance of a disparity in values between the US military and society at large. --Journalist Tom Ricks emphasizes the difference in the values inherent in the military from those of society at large. Some differences are desirable such as those associated with the Marines' core values but also including such things as goal orientation, sense of self, and personal pride. Others may not be and he specifically discusses the increasing conservatism and elitism of the officer corps in the military. --The military "sells" pride and self worth through identification with a group ideal. This can result in disdain for other groups -- specifically those that do not exhibit the military virtues. --Problem may be in part a result of the "All Volunteer Military." With the end of the draft, the military has ceased to represent society as a whole. Among the elite, military service is socially and economically beneath them. --For many minorities, the military is an opportunity. Seen as meritocracy where everyone is essentially able to compete evenly. (Interestingly, Latinos are especially drawn to the Marine Corps because of the perception that the Marine Corps treats all individuals equally bad. The Marine Corps appeals to Latino males because of single gender training and the perceived additional challenge that only men can meet.) Is the military justified to inculcate different values from society as a whole? Or should the military rigidly reflect the norms of the society as a whole? --The military requires more of its members than does society at large. There is far less room for individualism. For example, it is not "natural" for a citizen to be able to kill other than in self-defense. Militaries have historically had to train their citizens to kill -- to inculturate violence. According to Gropman, this no longer seems to be the case. Current media appears to be using many of the same techniques for "entertainment" that were previously used to inure new recruits to battlefield violence. --Success in combat seems to require a degree of self-lessness and identity with a group during period of life-or-death stress that is not found in normal life. --The military is different from society; the danger occurs when the military begins to think of itself as the savior of society. Ricks says there are signs that the US military officer corps is more politically active than ever before. Although there are no indications that these officers are a threat to the American tradition of civilian control of the military, he implies that the potential is present and the change should be monitored. Is our military strategy and operational concepts dependent upon the values and characteristics of our military? In what ways will our strategy and operational concepts are affected? --Americans are very well educated and independent minded. Our operational concepts are based on individual initiative at a level that is unusual in foreign militaries. --The American way of war is that of a crusade. Typically Americans fight with overwhelming force and zeal through the conclusion of hostilities. When not in combat, the American military person is quick to turn into a humanitarian and to make friends with the local populace. --The American populace also has a crusade mentality and supports conflict when seen as "good" over "evil." However, Americans appear intolerant of casualties and the appearance of failure -- specifically when not clearly experienced in the protection of vital US interests. --The perception of US technological dominance fosters an expectation of quick victory and omniscient intelligence collection. As a result, US strategy is susceptable to asymmetrical and delaying strategies. How technologically proficient must our military be in the future? Can the military compete with industry for the educated and technologically proficient potential recruits? Are there ways the military can hedge? --Technology in the 21st century is likely to be like mechanical proficiency in the early 20th Century. It used to be that to operate a motor vehicle or piece of equipment one had also to be a "shade tree" mechanic. Today's automobiles are very reliable; but few operators can do any but the most simple repairs to the modern computerized engines. --Just a few years ago, one had to understand DOS to effectively use a computer. Today -- and in the years ahead -- computers and technology will become so embedded in every day devices that users will operate sophisticated technology effectively with little or no inherent understanding. --The "net generation" is going to be a highly adept generation of military recruits who have no fear of computers or information technology and very capable of operating sophisticated military technology. The requirement for formal technical education to operate technology will decrease. --However, formally trained and experienced IT professionals may be increasingly difficult to attract to military service. They are the most-in-demand technologists in the private sector and military training will not compete effectively with civilian firms for the most capable. --A hedging strategy for the military may be to increase the degree of out-sourcing for IT support services in lieu of depending upon the uniformed military to recruit, train, and then retain sufficient military expertise for these functions. SCENARIO TWO: social cohesion increases dramatically along with a growing sense of America's role in global leadership -- "the American Century"  In this scenario, the economic boom continues unabated but leads to an increasing level of social cohesion in response to the perception of opportunity and pride in US accomplishment. US technological dominance and economic wealth lead to an increasing opportunity. The emergence of the "Millennials" over the "Generation Xers" as the dominant generation leads to an increasing interest in collective institutions and identification with groups. Social problems continue but there is an increased focus on collective measures to ameliorate impacts on society. Americans have a rebirth in its interest in history and social institutions. INTERACTION OF THE DRIVERS WITHIN THE SCENARIO CHRONOLOGY --The fundamental driver in this scenario are the continuation of today's economic and social trends resulting in a society that is generally wealthier than today and with an emerging generation that has significantly greater sense of group identity and respect for institutions. --This scenario forecasts a steady growth in the US economy that could result in a doubling of the GDP by the year 2025 if a 3% rate of growth is sustained. This period of prosperity permits accommodation of changes in demographics and improvements in social institutions. --Resulting disparities in wealth, opportunities, health care, standards of living, and education are accepted due to the general perception of prosperity. Disparities are seen as challenges and the emerging generation seeks institutional solutions rather than isolation from the problems. --Immigration remains high to support rapid economic growth. However, immigrants are assimilated faster than ever before with many excelling in schools and economically as they capitalize on networks and web based economic endeavors. --The Millennials begin to impact society with their greater interest in group. Interest in social institutions lead to changes and improvements. Problems with underclasses, ethnic and racial conflict and generation gaps persist but the overall cohesiveness and sense of "America" improves. --Society responds with an increased degree of activism -- specifically at the local level. The federal government decreases its role in core state/local areas such as education to be replaced by progressive local institutions. --The US continues to serve as the sole superpower due to its economic and technological dominance. --The US enacts a period of universal service that includes the military. This results in a growth in civic values and sense of collective ownership in American institutions. --The military continues to be the most integrated of US institutions. The perception of a meritocracy appeals to minorities and recent immigrants. However, the military must change to accommodate the bulk of its force serving a single term of enlistment as part of mandatory national service. The backbone of the military continues to be its mid-career NCOs and Officers who increasingly feel the responsibility to protect the unique values of the military service. --Technology continues to be a key characteristic of the US military dramatically expanding the demand for technologically proficient military members. --Globalism and expansion of real time news reporting continues to spur American interest in responding to global problems at the same time that success will be rapid and without impact on the average American. --The military is actively used in non-traditional tasks requiring discipline and sophisticated rules of engagement. Restraint and selective use of force is a vital characteristic in these situations under the constant threat of unconstrained violence. KEY ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION: How important are generational differences within the military -- when millennials are the bulk of the force but the senior leadership is drawn from Generation X? How significant is it when leaders and led have different values? --Generational differences have always existed. There is little reason to believe that the disconnection between the Generation X senior officers and SNCOs will be any greater than that in the past. --Clearly those Generation X officers who have matured in the military service will have adopted values and a group identification to greater degree than their civilian counterparts. There is no indications that there would necessarily be a fundamental problem in values even if the Generation Xers acquired many of their values "on-the-job" whereas the Millennals acquired them in childhood. --The led typically look to their leaders for values leadership through example. However, the institution rather than the individuals may be an alternate source of values. Would general national service have a positive or negative affect on US shared identity as Americans? Would it carry over into social values and support of social institutions? --The draft fostered a common shared experience of national service with the World War II generation for both the "silent" generation that were too young for military service and the "baby boomer" post war Americans. Military service before college and family was socially accepted if not expected. With the advent of the "All Volunteer Force," this shared experience is no longer common within the American elite. --General national service might restore a sense of civic responsibility and duty. Would only be successful if required of all. There may well be a carry-over into social values and social institutions but it depends upon how the program was perceived. (Fairly run? Effective contribution to society? A worthwhile experience?) --It could also have a detrimental affect if it was seen as poorly managed or that it is not universally applied. Could compulsory national service permit the military services to fundamentally reorganize with some support organizations becoming non-uniformed military such as medical, information services, logistic distribution, etc. that can be mobilized from peacetime functions in times of crisis? --Compulsory national service would have a significant impact on the military services. The degree of intrusiveness would depend upon how selection for military service would occur within compulsory national service. (Would the military services continue to compete for "volunteers"? Or would the assignment be arbitrary?) --The requirement to increase recruit throughput to account for shorter "enlistments" would impact both recruit training and skilled training programs. There would be a larger initial training requirement and a need to restructure unit Tables of Organization to accommodate a greater number of first term enlistees in the initial two years of their enlistment. --Should national service result in the formation of large non-military organizations that could be mobilized in time of crisis to support the military there might be a proportion of wartime support organizations that could be eliminated. Examples include reserve medical organizations, engineers, and logistic handling organizations. --There are too many variables in how a compulsory national service might be administered to effectively assess the impact on military organizations. SCENARIO THREE: social cohesion increases dramatically in response to a perception of shared threat -- "Fortress America"  In this scenario, the US is faced with severe economic, social, and/or security crises that results in a rebirth of a sense of a shared identity as the resulting social institutions are rebuilt to respond to the perceived threats. The diverse US society finds a way to live with lower economic growth rates. US security interests are primarily defensive. Global intervention is recognized as risky due to vulnerabilities of the US homeland to attack. Americans sacrifice some personal freedoms for enhancements in personal and national security. INTERACTION OF THE DRIVERS WITHIN THE SCENARIO CHRONOLOGY --The fundamental driver in this scenario is the impact of a national crisis that severely disrupts today's economic and social trends. The economy is in a virtual state of stagnation with unemployment at about 10-12 percent. Society is actively seeking a sense of unity to overcome this challenge. --This scenario projects a climate where the US turns inwards to solve internal problems. Like the New Deal the government is involved in deficit spending since tax revenues do not match demands for programs. International trade is down significantly; economic nationalism is a dominant trend with multi-national corporations under strict protectionist regulation. --Americans are seeking collective ways to return to prosperity. Return to sense of group purpose rather than individual self-interest. Personal security becomes a dominant issue and protective institutions such as firemen, police, civil service and the military enjoy enhanced status. --Americans are willing to sacrifice some personal freedoms for greater sense of personal security. This results in strengthening civilian institutions such as police and fire rather than expanding significantly the role of the military in domestic security except as an auxiliary role. --There is a rebirth in public interest and greater activism by the federal government. The nation turns inward with a greater interest in closing and protecting its borders and less interest in world affairs. --The impact on the military is dramatic. There is less interest in worldwide intervention and participation in collective security arrangements. When US foreign interests are involved there may be a greater propensity for unilateral action. --However, the fundamental security issue would turn to homeland defense. Military expenditures would likely be reduced but the most significant change would be in focus away from supporting collective security arrangements worldwide to protection of US airspace and borders. --Disruption of the US economy is echoed in that of the world economy. The perception that the US remains more prosperous than other nations would continue to spur immigration pressures. --Aging population is a key US demographic driver requiring social support. Reducing birth rate among upper and middle class whites as well as continued immigration has resulted in a much greater racial diversity within the American population. --Society responds with an increased degree of activism -- specifically at the local level. The federal government decreases its role in core state/local areas such as education to be replaced by progressive local institutions. --The US economic and technological edge on the rest of the world clearly is eroded adding to the feeling of insecurity within Americans. Defending Fortress America continues to the primary focus for the US military albeit closer to home. --The military is actively used in non-traditional tasks requiring discipline and sophisticated rules of engagement. Restraint and selective use of force is a vital characteristic in these situations under the constant threat of unconstrained violence. KEY ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION: Is it reasonable to think that the US would respond to a general, sustained crisis in our economy by developing a greater sense of social cohesion or by fragmenting? --Fragmentation would seem to be the most likely short term result of a collapse of the economy. --Development of a shared sense of social commitment would more likely result if the crisis was slow to develop over time. However, there appear to be variables that could just as likely lead to civil conflict and or a collapse of social cohesion. --Americans have been able to bond in times of severe crisis. This has occurred in times of war such as the Civil War and World War II and in time of severe economic crisis (the Great Depression) but only after significant disruption and through strong federal leadership. --There has been no historical case in which the cohesion sprung from the bottom up in times of crisis. How would the US military respond internally, as it perceived the social pressures on society? Would it reflect society or would it tend to withdraw even further from society while protecting its own values and social culture? --Historically, the military turned inward during the Great Depression. The military has been able in the past to protect its members and their families during short interludes of disruption. It is unlikely that the military would be able to maintain values and social culture apart from that of the outside social order to any great degree over time. --Over the past few decades, the military has been the leader of social programs rather than resistant to them. Today the military is the most diverse of any major American institution and seen by most minorities a meritocracy with few barriers to fair advancement. --Significantly, the Marine Corps is viewed differently from the other Services. Hispanic males specifically are attracted to the Marine Corps due to the masculine image and sense of challenge. Single gender training is one key factor in this appeal. The general perception is that all Marines "are treated equally bad." The current national strategy and military operational concepts are focused on power projection in protecting worldwide interests. Homeland defense is given limited attention -- in part due to very real issues about use of the military in domestic security roles. To what degree should the US military prepare for an expanded Homeland Defense mission? --Discussion of Homeland Defense polarized on three issues: (1) Homeland Defense against asymmetric attack by an external enemy in response to US policies or foreign intervention, (2) protection of US borders and airspace against illegal entry, and (3) support to law enforcement in response to social disruption and civil disobedience. --Terrorism as an asymmetric attack on the US homeland is a major concern. The threat of Bombings is acute. However, WMD would be the threat that would be of primary focus for the military. Currently, only the military appears to have the capability to respond to such an incident --particularly if occurring in more than one place simultaneously. This issue is under study by USACOM. Less clear is the US military role in detection/prevention of such an attack. --Military enforcement of US borders and airspace remains controversial. This issue requires further study to resolve "posse comitatus" issues. However, the scenario assumes a crisis that develops over time. Issues of jurisdiction should be resolved. Either the civilian institutions such as the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, or INS would be reinforced or the military role would be redefined. -- Although effectively used to support law enforcement during short term civil unrest, it is unlikely that the military would be unaffected if used for internal control during a period of social disruption. This would be especially true if the social unrest was along ethnic lines. Are there different values that must be inculcated or at least encouraged for such a change in mission? Or are the values that the Marine Corps professes for expeditionary service equally applicable to this change in mission? --Core values would appear to remain important. However, skills and capabilities associated with Missions Operations Other Than War (MOOTW) and the "Three Block War" appear to have particular value. --More than any other Service, the Marine Corps fosters discipline. This is one "value" that is essential in MOOTW. --This scenario places the military in an environment closely resembling peacekeeping situations involving non-combatants and restrictive rules of engagement. --Individual initiative and the ability of small unit leaders to operate within Commander's Intent would have significant value in this scenario. Efforts to foster individual resourcefulness and the characteristics of the "strategic corporal" within small unit leaders would have significant applicability. SCENARIO FOUR: social cohesion decreases dramatically as a result of increasingly lingual and ethnic diversity -- "Balkanization of the US"  In this scenario, the economic boom continues within the US dramatically expanding the US economic separation from the rest of the world. The US is secure in its economic and technological dominance. Immigration booms with a large influx of immigrants from particularly Latin America and Asia. The immigration is welcomed by Americans to fuel the booming economy by providing cheap labor. Diversity becomes a national characteristic and primary identification is to various subgroups. . English ceases to be the primary language in portions of the US. However, the booming economy minimizes adverse impacts on the perception of personal security for most Americans. The federal government effectively ameliorates frictions between the resulting regions and locales. The US continues as the world's one super power with global responsibilities. INTERACTION OF THE DRIVERS WITHIN THE SCENARIO CHRONOLOGY --The fundamental driver in this scenario is the extensive development of communities with unique identities and shared cultural, linguistic, or ethnic identities. --This scenario projects a climate in which the economy has continued to grow at sufficient rate that it has permitted significant diversity within the US by permitting social programs to keep up with demands during a major wave of new immigration. --A combination of major economic, political, and natural disasters in Latin America -- specifically Mexico -- has led to a major influx of immigrants into the US. At the same time, immigration from Asia has also accelerated. --The US economy has absorbed this tremendous increase in population by assimilation into the workforce predominantly in the service and manufacturing industries. In the short term, this has continued to fuel the economy and led to general prosperity nationwide. --However, the changing demographics have led to a slow down in assimilation into traditional American culture. Specifically, the immigrants have developed social enclaves maintaining their language and culture. At the same time, the rest of America is likewise reorganizing on common cultural and linguistic bases. The result is a tapestry of unique cultural locales within the US. --The federal government is responsive to social requirements and fosters local initiatives that reduce inter group frictions. These include providing public services in predominant languages to include public schools. However, there is a growing loss of group identity as Americans or shared sense of values. This lack of common identity or even sense of common problems makes effective central governance difficult even in times of prosperity. --The US Constitution and political process proves to be sufficiently flexible to provide the necessary federalization of the resulting Balkanization of America. --At the same time, these segments of the US population take advantage of the increasing globalization of the world economy and become important economic links between the world and US economies. --However, the diversity of the American population presents institutionalization problems in federal organizations such as the military. Many Americans do not speak English as a primary language and many resent being forced to speak English in their public and civic interaction. --Compulsory national service is enacted in large part to provide personnel resources to support federal institutions such as the military but also to provide the services support to the aging US population. -- The US economy and technological dominance continues to keep the US as the one world superpower. US interests worldwide remain essentially unchanged. However, the diversity in special interests within the US population makes development of a coherent foreign policy difficult. KEY ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION: How should the military respond to a changing US demographic makeup that specifically includes multiple languages and cultures? Insist on English as the lingua franca? Separate units with cultural and language similarity? Use of technology to provide universal translators? --This may not be as significant factor as supposed. Indications are that immigrants at a much faster rate than previous generations. English media is a key contributing factor. --It is unlikely that such a condition could occur in the United States reversing a worldwide trend of increased English usage as a lingua franca. --This cultural phenomena would cause enormous cultural dislocation before it impacted the military as assumed in this scenario. --Participants could not conceive of non-English speaking US military units. --The use of universal translators could be a hedging action; however, broad availability likely would lead to faster assimilation of English rather than fostering continued use of an alternate language. Should the military develop their own training programs in an effort to instill a common value system during training and then enforce this system operationally in military units? --Value training is a recognized part of recruit training worldwide. Much of the recruit training is focused on establishing a common value structure as well as establishment of a sense of belonging to an institution with a common identity. --It is inconceivable that a professional military would be able to develop unit cohesion without some effort to instill common values during training. How does the military respond to potential security issues with nation states with close personal linkages to portions of the US in which sizable segments of the population are also ethnic members? (In World War II, Japanese Americans were formed into units and deployed to Europe rather than to the Pacific.) --This issue is very sensitive. Participants had difficulty discussing this issue seriously and as a result it is an issue that should be studied in more depth. --Participants seemed to be more comfortable discussing this issue as a law enforcement issue rather than a national security -- or military -- issue. --There is considerable historical precedent involving not only the Japanese Americans during World War II but those of German heritage before and during World Wars I and II. --One problem of an open society such as the US is that there are a large number of foreign students and technicians within the US at any one time. The recent security scandals involving nuclear technology highlight issues regarding foreign access to both US defense related laboratories and research universities. Is the diversity within the military services an advantage or disadvantage in military operations. (A son of Aideed was a Marine reservist during operations in Somalia. Black Marines were treated with significantly greater trust in Somalia than white Marines. Spanish speaking Marines with Latin heritage are commonly used effectively in counter-drug and riverine operations in Latin America.) --This issue requires further discussion with participants with more background in foreign area studies and the manpower assignment process. --The Aideed example was not considered a good one. (The Marine son of Aideed eventually became his political heir in Somalia.) --The Marine Corps makes minimal effort to assign individual Marines to units based on ethnic background or language skills. The current manpower management system provides inadequate ability to track foreign area familiarity as well as foreign language competence.  Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory Corporate Executive/General Officer Strategic Planning War Game conducted 15 March 199, Report compiled by GAMA Corporation, pg. 10.  William Strauss and Neil Howe, The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy, Broadway Books, published in 1997, pg.137.  Ibid., pg. 241.  Ibid., pg. 137.  Laura R. Vanderkam, Report on America's Children Finds their Lot has Improved; Immigrants are a Study in Success, The Washington Times, July 9, 1999, pps. A-1 and A-20; and Kenneth J. Cooper, The State of Children: Better in Many Ways, The Washington Post, pg. A-1.  The Washington Post, 4 August 1999, pg. A-11.  FMFM 1-0, Leading Maines, pps. 101-102.  The Net Generation "Understanding N-Geners, a US Army Recruiting Command brief dated 22 February 1999.  "1998 New Recruit Values Survey: Measuring the Values of Recent Inductees," brief by LTG David H. Ohle, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, June 7, 1999.  Marines Almanac 1999, Marine Corps Public Affairs, pps. 27 and 29.  Shu Shin Luh, It Only Takes a Generation or Three, The Washington Post, July 14, 1999, B3.  Philip P. Pan, They've Arrived: Forced to Learn In English, Many Immigrants Excel in School, The Washington Post, A-1 and A-20.  Benjamin Schwarz, The Diversity Myth: America's Leading Export, The Atlantic Monthly, May 1999, pps. 57-67.  Joel Garreau, The Nine Nations of North America, Houghton Mifflen Co., 1981.  Robert Kaplan, Atlantic Journal, pps.  Laurent Belsie, Influx of Immigrants Chases City Dwellers to White Enclaves: Las Vegas, Denver Become Magnets for Former Urbanites, The Washington Times, May 20, 1999, pg. A2.  Francis Fukuyama, The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order, The Atlantic Monthly, May 1999, pps. 55-80.  Lt Col Joseph L. Robinson, USAF et al, Homeland Defense: The American Challenge for the 21st Century, USACOM Joint Warfighting Center's Newsletter, April 1999, pps. 6-16.  Fred C. Ikle, Defending the U.S. Homeland: Strategic and Legal Issues for DOD and the Armed Services, CSIS Report--January 1999, pps. 16-18.  Kelly Lieberman, International Trade Specialist, US Foreign Commercial Service, US Embassy-Mexico City, Study Report What Will the Mexican Political Climate Be Like for Long-term Us Investment in the Year 2007? of Dec 1997.  David Grossman, Trained to Kill, Christianity Today, August 10, 1998, pps. 31-37; and On Killing, Little, Brown and Company, 1995.  Thomas S. Ricks, Making the Corps, Touchstone Books, 1997.  Thomas S. Ricks, The Widening Gap Between the Military and Society, The Atlantic Monhtly, July 1997, pps. 66-78. PAGE 2 PAGE 26 MYZ[^_`hkz1ABC, 3 E j u ( v iweZtۺ>*CJCJ6CJ5CJ 56CJ 56CJ 56CJ 5CJOJQJ jUmH5CJ6CJ$ 56CJ$EH6mH jCJ$UCJ$jCJ$UmH5CJ$ 5B*CJ$ 5B* CJ$ 5B* CJ0CJ 9Z\]^lmnop16d d  V  $Z\]^lmnop1B^( = > i j dewx^I  89ij [I \uv) ,  21B^( = > i j dewx & FI & F,$6dtvwx>V]1;+,2V_ijpN P ""@"A""7#`#$( ((((()))*++++$,4,_,`,---*.+.......u0v011111jCJUmHj0J6CJUj0JCJU>*CJ>*CJCJ5CJ6CJ5CJ5CJCJNBC-.+$$ & FIBC-.+14 G+,Ŀ{vqlgc  c      U  m      Q        "#  .  8  B  R  [\FI  G`a89}~MN&14 G+,>Vi|@$$lJ'$#$$lJ' ,>VijON O P $"'((((+.1111113F6Y8Z888Ŀ}zwtqnkh}A  Y@ALM M I    H    6          H        'ijON O P $"'((((+.11hh & FM & FI$$$lJ'111113F6Y8Z888::::;;<<<===&='=">+@ph$$h1111E2Y22222 3M5V5Y5e566777J8V8Z8[8v8w8x8y88888888899:::::::::::::::;;<<CJ ja Uj~T; UVmH j UjقT; UVmH j UjiT; UVmH j UjniT; UVmH jUj0JCJUj0J6CJU6CJjCJUmHCJ j-CJU88::::;;<<<===&='=">+@-@n@o@q@BEFH+L,LYLZLfLgLL8NUPR(U)U9U{     N  qʴ_ ŸN ƸI  }Z :[]^T|,<<<<<<<<<====== =&=[>e>>>>?+@,@-@.@I@J@K@L@N@O@j@k@l@m@o@p@ZK[K,LXLYLZLfLgLMM5N6NOORR)U9UX XTXUX͘ 5>*CJ5CJj0JCJU jUjT; UVmH j Uj3T; UVmH6CJ>*CJjCJUmH jor Uj?T; UVmH j$( Uj,T; UVmH jUCJ<+@-@n@o@q@BEFH+L,LYLZLfLgLL8NUPR(U)U9U:UUWW[hh & FN & FIUX Z Z[[D`T`]`m`|``ccFdGdggjjllll0pUpgpppppppqqq>qXqhqnq}qqqqqqr r rrrrrttxLxTUCE F hj!:,-CJH*CJ 5CJCJ5CJ6CJj0JCJUCJX[S\D]_X`Y`n`o`jb*efhjjjj?kmn0pSpTpUpuppppp$@ $hhppppppppqqqq>qWqXqhqmqnq}qqqqqqqqqqr$prr r rrrrrxxLxMxyyzz{{|| }}}}~~$$l    '$$~-.HI/0vwvwڌڌی:SNO67Wߑ~*+<+OPhi}~ښ;ST+,LJ<Jl̟֟ן6N $$l    '$ FG`auvUIJŲPQlȶWXs !BCVG\MNhijk$$l    '$rs}~QRHI01!" !<=>>GHABTUgfx0\]yo)Ln~3JKcd),-./de^_DEM$$l    '$-.!{|&'Go589I )*+U/01Euv/1DTU:;Lwx$%4*6H*6>* j0JU5CJCJCJ [MN56!"78NSST"#>4klFG\]Fmn{&)/uT:w$     - = V W X j                      CJ0JmH0J j0JU6 j0JU>*! W               &`#$ 0/ =!"#$%n;r$#RG PNG  IHDRkSwsBITOPLTEܹԫ̙ɩѽ߿ԵҩӧNw̙3y23h,~qz){|{~reo,f3iP|i+Z-_`^ff3mI$ZK:MMLcJJJ%VDFB=D8,L3333955* 4& %%$$$  "bKGDHcIDATx wGQ)=ֱCmAT [ݽum:gBwvv~vEʠR|\P\ hP TU*V@[L?Qcp+T Fڒ8B` B tː@5ZfUjT`T!?`?/U%ŻPd bJ|%uy_c,.s ?2&Xla`47ƶ]@^WhۛeGSZTkH 7G͵ؙ4XtEڶ܀PGmOhRܭOl l%E=HU_AXa uR&Ty;=lkVUd e;߾Fot֘*ySgMs3>0=?-^SVn.= q1?*R]7xXnq-"ZwQWQĎ{pMDyD߅rEwg fVqevlѱ=o>_hu ֒Bj,M=?9h&=<G^k7uL}lCXЖ#y@9Tbϕwn^Iϛjq`XcMSиQ"W4R:p#X x6b W7"zGwkc1]_Ce$8#֒XxT7*Vؒ4-v0"WWh]bݖ}rcϙ:M0VѾOz5I0Mx^2usvX+ Sɥ'Xwن:)!V]'*!@rмtZKo$r.VvaeL`**{ЮyIdǏu56SkxkTP{EU^V%)sA_Z p 0ipASK6mizt$̞8f󖰜m|4ڷWYcfhc`'E^_BZcƍE}TSZbpl3Nm`mρF{c+5M\JuSuTmj%wY>^IÚIGĕ E"*:w@rL:y|S>֨XYk8b2LFtxf.ih.ʀUjukz4-CwY槖ȵX#b=n GaCfz U[zKPND6<ն5&p, ^ei.}(3Z5'ٿId%Zodzh[s̥KҲ;,cfZv*aGl2X=R[M @}ҹ~6kZj7VJcc%W͑e8kFzhS7 #v5 ,H9is( {0 mVi L$y{wWÊMoo-X-7Ǭ)9eکibd= Fe{L'b&tNU׸WtX阇c:LHo*q%ăjMC,H^DĽ]v O&x1r 9ڷG"O[߿~FXk*VFl}ʽŃp4z7 8rE.v7_B`mc+vzIc-`0U44=Km\4㼰Gl3l'5,7{Ĥ7QF0\qA/|x{_CDm.[QB5:k>Zdo M܍96xkʴm|ED^y 0 T)!K-h4:<^O^<۟(FF~J6(w C*a/k>\i=6t"EPpfXk>7Დ$#iSCd1{4pq橁j+ƬI ю;T8QNa["jQQ/x+N{0+c XXVt ւb]kէX1Շ!va^O[Tj:4R}gO2լ(`e#8M$քFˉ5⪈W45C/9UsÆ]pcmSC=c|! pcc`ő7G'ae5<c5 kq9k)LF4(bhub  0ç򌽜q5LXoL9.D>&e .E@Xg fScp0s8J$HųZּ%>31e5D7OMyaso5'SF/rsgK-&wu-\+M@؜̒JDP>nG Va߻>;/XJh * X =6ъF[MŎ\ulXJD{VCôBf6Ė( q`$\J7*xFO!VN ߿oSX+ݣӎ|mĞ9sXڄF-'bU|.LѨ_c7} ;l6.Cyp;ݮX4zC;Sᐻ ,&1V@E ֈr|#Scb鯱>o?@N*yN ~y"+lcEG VjuีOh|7~æƱp= }G8Qfv}m̹(X-kn+7ˣ_cF['b U2XkU_R1yXM[O`L+U:,!'ky`o4xXQI+u+;V="2޷:,= q[iAĐUk|I"nG|hʟst8V(ȳ8|4!nc德v>A Ј*= ܉㤈c]$}+w φc-sX1,M~O=e (~-tPqVt} sTΛCV曌TeE r KWuX$MǭÌ_ɽ0V VQIF;ɲ\x)*͗J2k^;X}h<W Kɂ3 A5.HxИak#sE4c:k$ŝwɓLX/w 1ڥ11掾{Wg*̵1NVX,/8l1^ykIa^iFW~tojCUɧ(`EꊗeUG"ƒx˽{X3ژ+XҊN7o AwVt V6 V!z8`%˄!e{pUb+|?'%򰋯lpXN& 1^l Z>.{VN/h!S@CzaIz6{ ]p[P'0&ms^±EZ,X [6}O$[CXv||yHPX|O|tޗAaPyU?Ξ9lvK|YJY _?/+ "i$ٺe[W ߆zyFG?'H:.aqfd>2@9]T|8`m[gj P`b]YceVeAsܺR W\X3$rkR*If9Xr (W^*O|ѯ,Wf" 4 S#cv6kj *xd'3<'Hk&`U~,E{i܃ܜl}Ҿh[uޯ [] Arkz,4t̔kj±ZI?s*4 5P9 U_QNxPLX_P8^>WAp*UPA.Xuk ŚzbA0WPkU{9)7D)s+)rS RЯbM.R*r]9= /X 5~lk|.X֠0X_ɺ Da`}[aU8Va#?FvwAHӿ~~uxz*C/(T"PXgyfOMo?D; # 0_^3I25MBؔ ֔U4 ן`/XS ̫?7'SޒOKs~^1 @vXa;b Z-&?ZFT#f`'H"z7W8ʃ#ds߲VV苿4Q|P_azSVh'3~U/UIpP/Ze,.P%'~r=?8˘B GzaZdZ2zҟx7t6IENDB`0T@!>C!1 Np08?o2 Xxtu 9阎)ݕ-@_o,~[Z&AlC?l#{?jWXŏ[j,-~[iWZUŁŻ_kYhqh7YjYőOZmX.oX8--~?aq⟴,i⟵,y[_-%_W-n[kſaoZ[ſcqߵ,}?,cjYi_Yg_[7g[,'_-7)Y_cZ~?`-#Yq?a'-O[i3YYy[|[{:C,S[Iq9?pp!d08EP\#{Ect @t @t @t pt%S]y{"=vAgNS뵚:`nkb2;zY¯TrAWnq4t")))wVOwC{=HTwvO1Slm}N`kNNN`"|Ւ˿NwUq{V=NGmb4G#lok&W=,&m&m&m̖M;m#LNnOwjʁNd5$0tcs3q :S:S:S:8NђކSxqD8ElGkws{V=cZMwIab)))̆SDǿJrx5i.н.]uDp$z=ܻ&>>>`|"Wdi{E=5< $MMM-$ߑ: uO==N76h6h6h`m 9r_pVfl6AH @ @mi-1?ޣݘӸpF#̵Vui;;[[εSXS:S:SpX%ww\# :L7OVλwog^w>=w^EOOO |FrsDy=~N>a>>>h(+9Z{y]?;nmuNNNf)<׏K~"?YyE;.RKKK $_?-'Z@8pב0ldߨo;=Y6a>>>`|"|}GrG'Rӫݞ`MN ǤMXMMM-HI~Apq|Lu 5 NSXS:S:Sv@$W&Z|ل^ >Q/)۾x,&m&m&m&ѲwI~V(ajwֽjz]^@ZPXS:S:S:-JF&<ܳ tNǬ՜?` 6a6h6h6h`l? y`A'x[YOOOM$O菸2ޟ=kjU=CO8_5?sa$ŽS3mDO=hRmouipt[d\~>a>>>5 !X L,]:{sUiom:f`g49\I^!9q¤w}{s/+sM:+[dW&OOOM$/?!9gf]bdEरbڣF$jE+1®Q[KKKKOIN~k2QʋC]Ľ{2o5XH @ @ 0VH^nJN~w^#yhmBe^I_&m&m&m&mmHI^ZߠN8eܹ.`^G`'#W쑲sIֳ;Uh6]))))/9 WBB.ʹL:#/ygz^^^4“||]rqz3; RaB\)aI"}t @t @t @t p4]"%'u8ޙYr6[W>;;.NNNf)OI.2;6{PjͦX =jD @ @ @guů=̵:{v=i6h6h64lB{':cqMV@Q9ss< |h{gx,V˥l_GZ{+Lt @t @t @t Q߀[QyV L:8:nk^^^`BW8ΎcK($Xt~R21heB].4+7]%]%]%]M%^{5"w{Xܕsn$**lmmnMXOOO-%ޒDrnGp8{ݮ؃&&@#/ii6h6h6f&j{_1bW2ӫ @vuv8_O\0$1um"m&m&m&lDF%5r]M[E Nn;+й1:(."۞PZUZUZUZ8V{?T0G"=v^EyۭVlZz:^s(3NNNh9EZG$~:szA|:%YOP? z"X]()&=\#SXS:S:Sp˒so&N~).ZP%hfv>XhH@C["e :S:S:S:8ZN{KrQ*}h暽^^S\q6*_יO&gn2;3I[-y.ek!vՒ3A"Y˨T\N<}.OnMM,E=A]Ot @t @t @s8WJ8Et+.8ϻL/Gq+OdJzbH^Zȓz,y}XB]5]5]5lF(#[?'!l)v|݃j"m&m&m&%]?iܳ&Má.h6h6h6h`6m" ɭߩ6S35jxY깥γ _wMRy>KD'Lhf@ @ @ @G&RWHNM zuzNenOuDN;5uWzͰ]t)L uff33g(x9;WhUe*%zn\d#NNNN^ST%>%9\c=yB]dsK(}y_t}ν[ @ @ @ 0ۖK^T Jg'.9;t$^uYW1}+_HU]}\hXt @t @t @ӫKoFx^=nh=]MIf`gMzHbS;5}=%ݥS"cYЮ itux\d"ln j2cQOT>>>p>q[iMr]c-9+ i?3],C>>f'|ɣ$VL']+ܞ&KP*P;68u \vf3k/rq{4Y]tn{;q{;Yݬ .Bt @t @t @8е%~5qTL֓yI\.Hk5NAO`zǃ:d"-2-2-2lYF$yC?A2[|i{uW=Uͤ0e]ͨt6j6]=L# y>n';NR\'k۝LJ%7mmb̼]'xa8LN`_YK!qYzn\NǪU9>>> Ӓ?oKkM-|u!KeBq.Z#\y!Nlin4$5Kyn)m"m6m6m̦m?Er'$J{˧WoMkȴvQ'v1]Z~}v;y_:4r ͦ+XMdNwZh5yЎ~2TܢNp,;;[ww%ZMd55i&m&m&m&p\2ϺVj~_ >ҹJ1>B..yjvщޞ{yՋSu Dpgsooom$o~~:g.nZMB&A~8...f%Bɗ%W^w@>{aԧWow{VBlV1V.B[шl#.T1MWVbeԜTWT:7]Z+!lS+-x.)[ʉĕb1n5[Q9onV*`-ϯɆuOO PhXMMM/MMk܎O)Z)F-ac3҅n~Nnx7tkN]7=av[?E`6EDf8כ^ϥVVsi˨%]d6ljFb f/Z-LP;(ZE̛,/LN>,cYA0:U='}$H<]B6F'N]y4ّʬM8c{Thhhf>bW =T6]Z;xzn>t9yE^_'.\>g^p_Ugޱ;ޙ} yVP,-XMʈ.6bV$3cݣYh7hZy@z=,̛,Xmdv&;YbGRYS B]zg͖h!h!h!fB\s'NL4[:q  ^ʉlݲhHZ .ʖptJțM=rYWP:IhNGS&i}^^>9yN<_(VB|E}%~\W}Whq*1k$đO&slӜJVVnSZG:?}Hqp]rʍo^[ (Uzqi~_J9go~> {G#StX'iM>f+VON& }"}G}G}7\tL'ytV͟9U9qre9wk0<\rZF.=tTeϋ_oStJoJYJ`6T{JdXk ݪ粭\.ܫ|M?MuY oRZ5- zU bk%X@D-D|!y\l<$k3k)z?Zbޓx`/ylUC_R?5'zJz=$=%v^*וJrJ?mr|9[\"yR/ѕy4ߚzmõn^'ߧjk;7Cnډ5Cxc恏n'?@/@/@/{xY3E/[/_?Z=U(sƕ닗n\y[k/\Xy򟥅 b?NV[ՙhs\蛣(>/1B%֜NJaǯNtǯXtǯ(nP>y[YS>Wj0Z+Q7ZFqYS8s9_Jh%Ej'tވbN;~?U\{:gLޝ gSQ>W[!WbWl檝sv_Mus3J~^t@'t@'tK$ook3Egl)E+7U7.]vl̹txW0,]Ntwn~s=>>P*_ n$vf9dHI.G6K,Ʊ!5 ߒ-wh_j*I+ukIrLejVٰ56*r)V9k4AgGd9|^}Bk$eJ|ri2Ie\LϽ>#>#>8>6q;/=':DWKB?UrU1 1'Ui3i7UlΙiՓ Vq   i$ |kΟ+/" ~)ͭfљhƉ d^tiO?|O_X`>ڻ'o$2ydJkbI9EVu~Bʌ%fj$nƭ-WPC8yE3y\5ۓ s\u'yJJ9#ٲeXp%YIDvNK,ĒK.RDR1ITwiP\vI<~nؼ>;͓TWA/0u%EǣG2 } #Q82~5s_"QIH=؅_DN<=xGٳg&)MyAGB%HLX"1aĄ%HLa#?U;R~*L%?{vpU+/9鏃0i& l=wR٢*+W\e$ּ2}O~z>[3Kh*./C#|rG@HH>;$)qDFwy& y{8z}ϲB;yHe"G-jMʘ׽{3ux,&Ԩ#ÿ #ic;OГe'て]rД6{XkN}bX|b '&,|bߏO~$l[Z[%h+*0/ch6%e"R$܍;Qo:xW^z޶|z6H&O|&uX%Gk* %Ffٰ $"EvIӯ,C҉#G&S'9~fEj'd2{^^c_fl ZE&k/-µٳk'л˞]T?V{./Rqԧ ,Z*ӡd] |]KYdj,p,!ìXc٣ֲ &&,lb² &&~?6X]G_t!.NEjVxl/PHhy]\td"j/_V7U6%|zd2ɏ9'Qoƒ=ROF6tBꈒZb^(&NHdIJpa KukVS91:^Q;ejH6;;mhf5:= 4"E6]W;B'O5!}RԤ !f c] Uid'51aĄNLX:1aN>cSx!4q]y喝V)LW?̦Zˈ-wWQR/0_:2#8Um+'rO7^''z(O!q!lvv 9C|`_O$j3NP;'lquЗ_w\!TCN~]՗ǏUmTWqբvtѣ,ܲ$t ӱO [TO]cVY&НXG98=yp0fgՖ(%zvt|b '&,|boOM:j"+~TYzu;ϴ% YT'@ m,NSuM?eoi ;5r`>YK#$#I v iGz!|.cc97Bɼ,/$H&{[GeF?x#^OEa9K:9?;l ń%PLXB1a 3LT[MA(?|?W찶=z$;:n;L.Rw_*7H%vF+_x<Dr;Bs͸' OG_BFzIJH^st7/CnyY7;-Q\R IZ +:/Ͻ{z5T7Xim,{tڠhc2t%-}~|N}ӆkgƬtL2)xB3'՟ u,yC]gg7\\h\'&,|b '&,|`jmp\o|?&v:#׽Rv2=9hf+Xx02XA0lE"hg^:*qծ ٓꄫ܆릳˵3~*op=kӧ_ de"d=$DWZ wmdkI2@j4vy%d<9g `YӋdvd k+Ur6FR#kz^nGXlڬtp;օ<[Q1a)CfK)&,b/R~*V [oANTZ^"7;r?፼w}rxDLrkjbzqK#u;aֳؙoԷ|׫(#+B\'禧Յ8sG%PXH;9zGCYPm@1D-X)RZɺ^%lJRcNNj uMrNՑӧ9O./e0'&,xlĄOLe&-8{KT[X/V5%֝p:gޭ~dW"~w:2\^w>՟PpǖVLXZ1aińVL_Jhe[܍j<ލ.ڣw?Ƿ>{TdyR;'ogFΕhJ}2 |Z'VuW*꾟 .oq=̚uץ3M/`+!wC"uW85 :X%H2V6uQ{CKP`.2_ sy\gn07[msyg0SM +&,b?M^)˺Ӕ5PV \7p kgյJW:&nnZj"Ġh T$YHQf $v䠸TLl"Y2w~*Ʃbrv5y4=D%uY耝vP@M (MاԃNŜ kzY6ud}83"aYPIdMbo=2<^;8Oh5kǨA,ca2 &,caM0Z+{`1F#u#㈫\w)}|j~;J&܊wۓx쵺B%yߌv=L+aE/lOԕuhCV;QĸZYH@ e6}P +1˜c~5{[0a+&,TbR K%&,vT)kRn)7P*b08q?xq=]܌ߵJ` G#se1ǙIs҅ K&,]ta҅ K&,]Ѕ';5GQg/=txg҄ K&,M4a҄ K&,M G֛5z=w7%A}j !5nޡXU=51j ~ ߽ 5.h^u@w*EtaݜKUHf?,eܿ*Pg@2ޡҀ$2: P۩&-ۡTr.UZq~C֧ZE5.EٙqzY8)F? y< {@<{W^~~7:T cY„e %LX0aY„e ;+,q[X򠶚{W7 :}RӱTqڡbT"[ 6DZovwZ=K%|(nFHPn<{Wʁ+GgNrG@,m&luÄ%HLX"1aĄ%D"|e<4F_>L3?;5ݡK}mݧC~w->DH Ϟաq&n„e )LX0a„e )Lq")LO֘:M%xsXH5]~7%?):58.8'?nJ +LX0a„ +LX03ω:~ -?kAmF fl_i1HVýji)$[A0LU:v{3ƾIwonFHEJ(Q}}8UI~pŠZ2E.1qxuD'ԡ<=i3t{>-) XqWk&,Db K$&,{g[G[{}#}%̌22Nl C 2T8 N 7qO>=vk|OWXVul hf"iiov;D,kۖ{A,̤L/?@L]Ec}P qx A >Bj1GWPj ֕$ّD4 ,U4C/gHRfK1)PiRѠD=/0) GA ƞ>4 ހkի%j˘&$gEt5vO]g]! m4fHC! m4oi7C܌`j/'+3m/JuU3>H'Nrx)&jr%zKSlw)ㇼN'7 5FmGo'$ &xO|< +b$3yNL-0R̴w*c*\[ehQɴ Diѧ<^ Gf;ϟ.K=bv櫂H8yv(#L=>Vc|dafњQZ;:d7P#(uۈ2ŅԈnQ#}|u^s{r{++~͚{ /.;$]#<7fC$ h3D6C$~9d_h% `3A^oݺic̽wwۏ޻JX^d)pbY%NJ:A0!8ͮNurJ3Vdg,{clN)UKR'C5 cqEFFU];dU>Xe_ !ga?0˗j 2T+zpeFvlaMfl!_Ef,#8TYߤ:ujnS͹C5.cyp|]>v"jCHz 2}rqq|,*amQFfEam'HnOm˶/d/ܺ CQ ?|c-m}6*f37m@3]O;XW77۫JZ]-|"Dtb7vttӻ/'$AV| l@*^RQ)HΏIT3& 4A)[TXϟGJH $w9CGe9:R#zH3c$j9=rp0WV>+X_Rh` T?{䄸-6fV Loboafnzrdt= <@YAͣ(yX=9??9z zφZjfEmZ}KSݑݻ?t:'OgsLORKQ-ΕhTTY,` aj-d Q|'W |_*ad; !9~FJ>P Fi#0 L=~FDffEamY}JSݕͻ;D2Omiڛ+۞+dGx|W9ڣj攔WYXJoaT޶]KxzgW_O">66ԱۊWo RM4 C&,Z9PISQbj#)u@-GUA(~\~!dPhQiSa耎bܥBhOz05$HWt Zb\k #]! NNsTX?Eeo9&&VmZjfEmhj۩F\)ҙ^)J mf8fu}RfJ\忱Dnɛ9^ދy^+ǫOHY3e[A| wO{x?2#w }"*\ѣE. %AH9RZaZ|U3 TCD@ AQ(3ŠETL*_#T5P$ JXzH,j%\`FW12'PBd\F_V> <3F-f vD a틋3Dа6* h3Ͱ6*>U>_jwRz6K&Ҹc=ܰ+A`dy(' wK; k7H]^luud/,qʣ:}|{ZCBpH-.)xPD'yP_Y{嵲(ae.]9f#Wd֥d!GTt"+\O^Ru{ h&sBSaLU=B#}j>QGAȴ%m h3P6C) hX(PCPҍTZCYȲX"Kټ?Yvɛ }o ^RWTF9r ʹS+BNYdyesSީgּդRQ4R'Tt{WUALg^!@.*[J2f+~UZ<{|Cꉅ_XT i!˖٭]rUG ]+P[}w1MY^fxEmW^fxEwW W~^2B>Z_*vGeݬvDX1Y9r|gS`Pn%Eo_'[i)@ڷl,">d8"8 $7<{S"j,;gn={{ZKt2J h)[AK,&٪E6j#$x~ aVXfDamM6fD&?/6 //K/+L'Ҿf$.H")Xk*q%?~%TN=N~oyOR"{ʈO kU{ {2 F :QAYdςBx^s:EE9fCO//fs|JNDۚidYaDKwqq~.1z:fDmN:B'B'@'4zx/US|fQV Xaf9d½-ne,˱bY(/ʭa?WWd=̣3=>V>!X j8$nYdjȗgv!:U/Z*>{Z yZA~k`E0svvT,B7ד Q~kS_ rrp! *HK23=c&cz599ҙ06 h3 06 ھk D)d7(-0ͼTj.v:GUl>ZfTEOb/wrIE}F!38d EOX"u>9EqJIL"D"dϾeY2H<=J,)cZ|6A9=:u2H,<8/ʾ =y][C'{Lő((C0# Y g!.A5}fXDamEfXDwE |,Q,|cx/lUˉBRT1]LYN,溞8iYN{S°! )!w,:#|9? c2B:Ij&)a -ٝ{r<9hћ@Au!L/MrK5mpN#X# W 0ANyR8o8%Mt ^Fű8dq3D9>%mBf8DmCf8D/C'}pȓf7dX ZZvRHqlϪ4Y8L~6eCk"4[?3А >VT6.zދ''o0y_$')\_PId8KEDMϗKe VԨy(O gYgAVtطDsYf av#.!,q2ރ+TaVYFY*m4eM<p^68HuFncnn1uIλCG.fDmp6%qK~\yiz\an|\үf/R>+Unu vUW0S_JoH\N!]K&3ƍMo4r)J]W*['={C{d߳gj/.!sU"3!UIzI!)ivpͰ}:³gqFzLeo'hcppɄ3}+y9mN}fAN\?V5p;<=E-(<]7+T|uu!qBzʄzOܪoNZwg,Ǐ> i{ 9j'>yX9f)zF:3wA.8E)p"y̢ce(E,0}0QaNvvDžƨ%ͮ;T4t7iF Z%˽;kd0zxP!^]<;xkD"߇\R?BmoE.oԖ7B"qqTC$ %Ȋp-$I%N5"iIr| $)>͐1qJ~4Lϖ\T8ʙo5=z V6Y"A6q;XHկ^ޠؖH(cxٞP$DgV,I(+LrkO; 9n.{J<<29b/1TUħ$3TY$.%׿DMVsKOmEG.=f+1˻RC-~#P;$;T+d !D #XeQ͈skj@+[Ҹe w5?Y+j8"^U!T*5LЗ9I/1U[9[d6٥ÌR믿J' hC7Bƛr 3m`y%'ﯠ֬!r3NawCf#$O8|9`s/6 ( [dۘxs{̢ce(E,И0C0˧j~|~^ě*wH&kS8E3m[ieSU]? mp F"PTwZ SWbxaY-w&*)8BNf!lg޳Z)~fl{^XaWsLL0(3318WI2v,j% FXǼYx_ +9͝[*d*1 ^k3:mNQ#^W^@U m ׄ3bgf`/?d3^k0|CfqhΎ9@f: e0S2~`9YK׏/խ|FzœgN|Qך <6|淪־ZH#qT=|dؘ&aF&/Q4Ȟ8F:CmqOu"E%Mɰ ;%OqLG kbʜ[!UX_['4H+ x\jaKz^\j<BMQoLi'g /}/睳{AZYRZ.w #C}xU3oǏc3P!P g\ z\VNϞ!zRemEG-a LKQT`\Ngp<Ǘj1P޲-_kVg|zyscnߘG&V- ;[C-C-Ϟ=.NuB}Z}]؈?H7AFm-.f)2b8#R]Dou+i֗dH%Y|r9./QM']ԄlqU"=`A;Pr'Y2G GA3Vs#ֵ0MhQQ2ZyԢ̣eةCZ ',k}'-G~~ǿY.AرFg]-Кצݍau4O-r`n/+֬B8u~8;" d /nm3;d#XbF~H!DS\Գ"A%>4g(YTa~'t~E}Jd2ΪBnN|F%ĝ"Q>m*, zW̱Kc쟀1N1;y!-Yv!ۭg~\Mԛ&ce(XE*Fl5P ;BeMtܟ^7P5-F**doYjY|d?cͬ=yBa֖n`7CCmMmd MY3-ǚ<_dML ^˜WpWd\V DwX+}vِkCd/ɷ\h 3֬ΡKԒ:֊̸fVn̸^}l6Y㱊2Uyce(*?VUށ;r;MƣPh ^hmcX dvWO&ke9;`FZhN6O'o4aa2A&1#X>,cMŶޖ9~֛Fٻ#D 2Q "2Kdu<٦@NgTa`^,Ve/6ĜUdnm&uj;_GItDA&d)ގ<ό1'{,Xd {Qߥ(XE*jZך/,yϷW~:tRNJ1H)&Ա}3zۤmևOS0GY#=đ T ~HiF n VC])Hj*B#*0UHԴP!4IQ-*$mֵvXae]jUW\ P%Ƅ424sR w݊ޣe(DG'<:QщlIR;?o'(>\̺Mo,A϶ {c di͆sB`~<9X$V/F'L$Қ^,]+|+^J{W>?j۵+{g|?3669!X|fF&9Q\O| Zs G$1)Cs3ɂcd'šoڲݩ+_erSS%ؗT'w5Xy$7XyۦZA׋N]qq}Lܐ*҈Sz ΝaR1Zwo+#VR#Xs&G3t/SxE+<^Q(xEُW>e*YzqZby Ɖ&ҾOO}dCvĶ3i,\vkcү6񤮗ͼL982-˴GB>6ag>OVcغe2IÂ"҇+g̷9ےQy]B섙鉐5ŒM AcaKLa΂b1ͭqȓ d"YeLbxZh,xn0 ]YIi\CfN#̂*clc-b7ߝ'ϵD~5Eau.{VyL;`!5#f{z}XhloS 0kruЈ,i~sllc{~w1h̞D<{g2 !>;uwdzrrX=5if"EL3,Ӻ5''|X]Y½p};4a$xr#T4ѐ 2t63Z lnBy~)/=>\px"42|WN'?379L, If$3N==h!(MYx7<8 3'17(J#9LX0pU+3 YWmJݖwGݖkpYwMY2?2BuԴ6qjbP At0屋yBA EdF8@d .˜1J(\͂!ϜaU09"3CbX4ib%&LbZ+֭BJ~Qi9隦;:at:7Ky^'R-6J; |FpuL(q\-6rcL,&"  e> ~Q M;w;pwP)#\sAo2O§),4 ,|~>_/—*| ߀o·.<|~~?J,bP4iBӄ" EPb^>?1ƉX3p(ok>~ 0  qP:|5Ce$(CyaD;"<{Sz71&$&M4*w5\˞ o5<*@F~*"zSbVNzy0ʬDNuD;쉽`;mL}^f5~ Z- J>/ipu˨9YaOkƏxzʷ#2BeQMDQ|t.]9CqgӓVwC0㋋s-4[il!03Z' F[fAHl=/h5~c|8m1f`&ʤh[nTnowͭ,bG w cXj\ 3N'4&&& qPUbÄa?:lȧA.w&."(qcx#y$9OD;l y4DTL!/F4*a& {z<BC7|KQ´C~@(Uh@puqi]p'> >„zb&TQ2@*BAn+Hָ7dĂΠ& m@:[lvx23o+E1%0ǫ!bX4ib" Oi},G8mBzcXXvf8lb0$gu?Mܘ>[rU\D|(rU@> FDl"J1b%QL!GJC4yR%} x KT r?Ǵ95¾zusÕ%':!cbV4iZӴ"iE/i-<2L0S;9~Uar7 1˗:BL3f 1b)4S=,pi50g(-ЄWU2+ 2.2)2hѿ@$23ad\"\DQE`xZ{:]#)d>d5.,2=;դ/^p5 K˗Q k#cRAUi}5T֑yj@EnMۨ \yf#Ψeٳ/ٳc*McքWdVTuK 7f2Kzq\e.wsƅ^CE벾wY~]Tjtz|wE-hzAP3O:>(Cyb\y[I'PDmg itf0u *Ɠ^U']w9xn,6R,j=ˬA@ywU=u.6.quP{~vQ ;ϕjDPy} )5r92{̀*[\j`Ϻ >:~zJXr\5<`rbr'=V5tOPli,!YBLf %~H]ֺccqQ=nSKxce==_..zV̔չR̳Y,mVSI#p" g_8c|Dž/S<ەhhGPb:!bT4iRӤ"Hšֺc˦߾ w^άs(b&4Mi4!iBLӄæ ֹZf~1K4|\f 1b%4Ki,!Y¢u.Gkm=Gx1Q`Bhn q>_xЪ": B#-(qhp%1?Y~bUJ==: cžO4P0YA+9%oP%UQWQA]E)577^s=hb~I Sۨp}}.%1ߥǞ1X[_V3xы%Ң/C[kZ쏏5LsBSkStxVޢϷuGG4kH?;9&L+,f:}$0 $:HmY#˚`Xrqvtٞ76IGQ,vtâK$]iVToѧ{`}w\%='ۣ(5* ̮,όuJqKڛ f<\7Z?~;bP؎v<RRRR7 {q߻b7;K@)K(K(K(K(K(K(K(n6@#Y>ae~Kgd}/Pzp 3ܸ¸¸¸¸¸¸fqo]- Fjw.ꋀƠ ""AFe\4-2tRcǮ&te :QUGqTWY;Trt@(ǻU׍D0zd|?bED9_{; S1BwQtP«1~',{y'»>!DE?57({;-B;eZ*U [EPe [B<<;Tely-v8ۦ: UcYBqrrtS$ 8=U5ML0>0>0>0>|YFem{~ꝙ-un-x55j옾{ʽ۷Kc4$zG.2pnak`1aws[K_! DANq]h^7Ʃ^-z98<}zvo})ovj +(2~G<==9A M060606060606l"cY۾dc\wE“C/Ύq F     %ȚVt([M{1r>{"ʆFP$H"EޑZ"+)P|\xE@?!k(28hevktP!2o(<1$"+/ 2dJA!)H znȐTU"I"Cƍ#ʼ_}G&qs>fl2C?(7OF~2O}Fg+2d(0ЯJ5eTwD^^!oQ1`ߑMD{lԠԐw_=(L{|O  2>0>0>0>0>Y|mYdM5WfyjpϽD334;2Y\ݭ}\8ЕYnfo/U{MxpQ$; Ru(ztYEc!wA"dT)خv=RRRRR7$d]{_ִP!~[҅''''''_>ȺiσOKx1r.:#2ժ DV>q"F%p(1.h\Ba\Ba\Ba\Ba\Ba\Bq=DJֳYJI% t'y{9# /A=Q(@ vHRe! #D'hz!TFQN5HtQэ(_@ꡏF/% O:cý=*Ld0#n~zz/Tk>V⻖Ur~]Kud^?8y+~,cKP_H\Fw+jB}!%qtU|5w2<9Ѯ%)b4N0N0N0Nrsg㲖]_jb"1uʹFg!^_^IeRAHR8˶;C#h꿽Y&c%fTt`lD~CCQؾ88888fpgߕbFUz,'g&Ca|Ba|Ba|Ba|Ba|Ba|Bq3D?;%/':#7ᡇ6 ~q q q q q q q c= Z l"r?SǎxĻggv&&&&&&&7MD 6*?s ǭBA 匨٣;n${mLSQ9UCIma35-tmV5Ԁv@hhvQٍ-jQ{