General MacKenzie, here is one quick item. You were on a TV program the other night where you corrected one of the reporters when he left the impression that the enemy was really up to as many as 40 million of the Pashtuns, and you corrected that because it gave an impossible kind of answer to it.
The second one is that an earlier presenter here said--and he brought politically biased commentary into it--Canada's commitment was a demonstration of an alliance with the United States rather than a response to a demonstrated need in Afghanistan. Yet he followed this up in his closing remarks by saying that there was sufficient military support by other governments to replace Canada's and calling for Canada to reduce its own military, which I suppose, by extension, would mean that the replacement government also would be sharing an alliance with the United States rather than responding to a need in Afghanistan. My point here is that we're having a bit of political obscuration going on, as well as some other comments that seem to need to be corrected.
Could you comment on those two?