First, there is a major difference between the two. I've been very frustrated at the media coverage and some of the comments that I've heard during the debate in Parliament. From the get-go, the Canadian Forces were sent in the south to be part of the stage three of ISAF. There was quite a bit of confusion regarding what exactly the troops were doing there, and it was not mentioned enough that it was part of ISAF's extension, not part of Operation Enduring Freedom. That's the first point.
The second point is that ISAF was initially created by the UN. It's under a UN mandate, supported by UN resolutions. And the British.... It's not directly UN because it was not managed by the PKO at first, but the British took command, then the Turkish, and eventually NATO took it over. But contrary to Kosovo, it's UN-mandated and UN-supported.
These are important points to make for the Canadian public. ISAF, from the get-go, has been more peacekeeping-oriented and general security-oriented rather than hunt-for-terrorist-oriented, as Operation Enduring Freedom has been. That's not to say that Operation Enduring Freedom does not play a useful role. Some of the regions in Afghanistan have been a refuge to elements that are violent, that have been extremely disruptive to Afghanistan and the Afghan people. But they're more of a strategic reserve for punctual action than they are right now at the centre of the action. So it's better if ISAF's at the centre of the action, and that's what's coming on the ground.
I think it's reassuring to hear Mr. Bachand's interview with Commander Richards, who said that there should be a more encompassing idea as to what the security should be.
Just to get back to your drug purchase point.... I'm sorry if I took some of your time.
Alain Labrousse, a drug expert, has told me that these programs have already reached their limits and that it would be impossible to purchase everything that Afghanistan produces. Therefore, there are limits to what can be done through what you mentioned earlier.