Afghanistan, and I would say Iraq. They're highly politicized environments.
There isn't enough evidence, actually, of what the effects are of these operations. I've just spoken with Peter Walker, who is from Tufts University, and they've recently done research where $1.2 billion has gone for the commanders' exercises, the commanders' humanitarian operations—I'm not sure what they're called—in Afghanistan, with not a shred of figuring out what is the evidence that it actually works, that it's doing whatever it's supposed to be doing.
For a humanitarian agency, the sole purpose of humanitarian operations should be providing the basic protection and assistance to civilians. No other agenda should be involved there. It's very different for my organization's development work because there we have a different agenda. But humanitarian work should only be about saving lives and alleviating poverty. And I don't know that Canada's army or any other army that's currently fighting the war in Afghanistan can be doing humanitarian work according to humanitarian principles.
If the Canadian military is building schools for some other reasons, then it should be called whatever it is. I don't know whether it's peace-building or development, if you know what I mean, because creating the confusion about what is humanitarian and what is not is not beneficial for anybody, I think, in that environment.