There is a bit of a philosophical debate about signature projects—yes or no. And we know there's a prevailing view, hard in CIDA itself, resisting that. But the point we're trying to make is that if three-quarters of the assistance Canada is giving to Afghanistan is going through multilateral channels, or government channels in Afghanistan, there's no awareness on the ground that we are doing anything.
And to your point about imbalance, which we agree with, we're not going to correct that imbalance unless there are more identifiable Canadian projects being conducted in that country. So putting a flag on it is not as important as getting recognition for Canada in Afghanistan that we're actually doing things directly for the Afghan people, and not have all of it going through multilateral channels.
Now, I know in the development community there's a debate about the efficacy of these different approaches. All I would say is that in a war zone, I think we have to be more conscious of quick impact projects that people can identify. It was frustrating for us to meet with the elders of various communities, who were totally unaware we were doing anything other than our military role. So we're trying to get more recognition, more media attention, of the third D of the triple-D—if that phrase is still in use or not.