I certainly would concur with your last comment there about the college, but in terms of this transformation issue, it's difficult to deal with the transformation if you're not sure what the objectives are going to be. This, to me, means that we not only have to deal with the forces, but also look at the overall objectives of Canadian foreign policy and be able to mesh the two together, at the same time recognizing that you don't want to lose that operational tempo.
At the same time, the forces are going to go through a period of adjustment, and maybe we need to be consolidating where we are in the world. Maybe we need to have more of a focus. The Australians clearly decided to focus on one area of the world, and it made sense for them to do so. Maybe ours is hemispheric or in Asia or wherever, but we need to have a clear signal. Clearly we can't do this in a vacuum.
One of the items you pointed out that I thought was quite interesting was whether we will continue to emphasize operations through the United Nations, or will it be NATO? You put some points clearly on that.
Can you elaborate a little? Somalia was not peacekeeping, but peacemaking. Anybody who saw the equipment go over there knew it was peacemaking. I have constituents today who think it's peacekeeping in Afghanistan. Can you briefly talk about that?