That kind of leads into my next question. There are numerous other NATO allies there who have fairly restrictive caveats placed on what their troops can and cannot do. I was wondering if I might get an historical perspective, perhaps from Mr. Maloney, on whether or not that's traditionally been the case, and I think I've already heard a little bit of that. Perhaps it is Canada's turn, but maybe there are some other NATO allies who have to take a turn as well, who haven't perhaps shared much of the heavy lifting in the past.
Where do you see the future of these caveats? You know, if NATO is going to be an effective organization in the future and it's going to work at bringing about some stability against the threat of terror internationally, does NATO need to maybe reconsider its own structure and its own governance so that sometimes these caveats might not be so restrictive in allowing the commanders who are in the field to actually produce the results that we expect of them?