I'd be delighted to answer those questions.
We do not use drugs in the field to combat fatigue or to keep people awake 24, 36, or 48 hours. That is not our policy. There are many implications when you do that kind of thing, and most of these implications we're not comfortable with. One of them is that you always have a fall-off when the effect of the drug wears off, and that may be the time when alertness is most desperately needed. We do not use drugs. We do not enhance the performance of our soldiers. We do not keep them awake and allow them to remain more alert for longer periods of time by using drugs.
We use a variety of mechanisms to train people, make them physically robust, provide them the right balance of surge and relaxation. Sometimes they're driven pretty hard because the tempo of operations demands it. We always say that rule one in operations is that the enemy has a vote. We do not use drugs to ensure that people stay awake or can serve for longer periods of time.
I'm not sure whether an audit would serve a useful purpose right now. I've been through the procedure several times over the past years and months. In 2002, we had the audit you referred to. We took the recommendations from that audit, and we are in the process of implementing them. We are now changing fundamentally all the things we're doing across the country in providing services. What we need is one or two years to give some of those things an opportunity to take hold. Then we could do an audit of where we are at that stage. So I would suggest that the summer of 2010 or thereabouts would be a better date to look at this. That would be my first-blush impression.
Sorry, was there a third question that I didn't answer?