To go to the last point, I think the committee is entitled to have a view as to what is the proper meaning of the term “national security”, since it is statutorily undefined. But what the government should or should not do in a particular situation might be going beyond what the competence of the committee enables.
To go back to your earlier question about the role of the committee and the government's duty to defend the nation, I can only suggest that you keep in mind what your constitutional function is. That is to hold the government to account. What does that mean? In my view, it doesn't mean holding the military to account. That may surprise you.
I mean that in this sense. I've heard the expression used, earlier in discussions before the committee started, about wanting to know what's going on “on the ground”. Well, I'm not sure it's the place of a parliamentary committee to look into what military operations are going on or how they're conducted or whether they're conducted well or whether...etc. It certainly is entitled to ask the government what its policies are relative to a military undertaking and what directions it may have given the military, etc. That's holding the government to account. There's a line there somewhere between holding the government to account and holding the military to account.
I just invite you to maybe maintain that distinction in mind as a way of indicating where your inquiry of the government is appropriate but your inquiry of the military—and I know you have some military witnesses coming up—may be inappropriate for a parliamentary committee.