Thank you.
I was interested to see--while recognizing, of course, as we all do, that we have suffered enormous losses there--that we've also had successes from a combat point of view, and we're all very pleased to see that. You mentioned that we have battle-experienced troops now, and I was interested in your comments that this is very significant from the NCO point of view, the commanders on the ground who are leaving the forces, platoon commanders, etc.
I contrasted that in my mind with your comments about what you call the officer-heavy or the top-heavy situation that we have. You looked at ratios between Canada and the U.K. and the U.S. I don't know if they're necessarily the best comparisons. They have huge armies, and maybe there are economies of scale; I don't know.
If we're going to go forward with your suggestion about transformation, part of making the force more efficient, I would assume, would be to have perhaps fewer officers and a more directed force, maybe fewer people at NDHQ, or some other way of reconfiguring the forces. What do all these people do that doesn't need to be done, if that's a good way of putting it?