It's a mug's game predicting the future, I must admit, but certainly, first of all, I think we should be looking west, significantly, into the Pacific area and Southeast Asia, etc. That's going to be of valuable economic benefit to us. We want to maintain a working relationship with the United States, and it's amazing how our very small contribution, in overall terms, to the American military makes a phenomenal amount of impact.
I lectured for 13 years, thanks to an invitation from Colin Powell to the joint flag officer war fighting course in Montgomery, Alabama, for their two and three star generals. When I mentioned the size of our force, there was a pregnant pause from the generals waiting for the punch line. They thought it was a joke. They said, “You are everywhere.” I said, “Yes, but in fairly small numbers.” They said, “Nevertheless, you're everywhere.” They were complaining about the shortage of resources at 800,000.
When the government decides that we are going to participate in coalition operations, whether it's UN, NATO, or coalitions of the willing, which I like, because that means they're put together when there's a crisis, and they're all committed to resolving the crisis, we need the ability to respond with flexible forces. And that means navy, air force, army units that are large enough that they don't have to be put together as some sort of heterogeneous thing for a while before they become a fighting unit. If we have that, and we're close to having that right now, if we don't let it wither on the vine--we have a habit of letting our military wither on the vine after an operational commitment--we would continue to make a significant contribution.
As for the Middle East, I won't go there. It's just so, so potentially volatile that we stand by waiting for coalitions of the willing and deciding whether we're going to play or not.