What's happened in Afghanistan proves the folly of a large and expanding alliance having no coherent strategy. By that I mean it is now mature or at least evolved to the point where the Americans are running the show. You've got to have somebody in charge. You can't have a committee in charge, and NATO is a big committee with a requirement for unanimity, not just in Brussels but all the way down the chain of command. All it takes is one country to put up its hand and say nyet or no and they have to go back and try to water down the direction.
NATO, hopefully, will regain an operational capability, based on all the studies that are being done, including internally within NATO now and one that Canada contributed through the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, and also the similar organization in Calgary; it might move in that direction. But if you're going to subcontract, in my estimation, you'd do it to a single country, because then it is in charge. It wouldn't have to establish a headquarters with representatives from 26 other countries, all of which have a little different way of doing things. Basically the litmus test is now. Even though NATO is on its back foot by the way it wasted the first number of years in Afghanistan, we'll now see whether the Americans can pull it out of the fire, but at least there's an American chain of command.