Well, every time I got into trouble with the UN operation I always said to myself, “God, if only NATO was running this, I could do it right and I'd get the resources.” Now I discover NATO is a bigger debating society than the United Nations. In the United Nations there's just five that count, the permanent five. In NATO, what's the latest count?
So, no, NATO might not even survive the wash-up when this thing is over. There might be either tiers within NATO, and I mean various levels within NATO, of those that are willing--I call it the multiple choice alliance now. They get a mission and then one country will say, “I'll take that” or “I'll do a little bit of this.” Sorry, that's not the way it's supposed to work.
On the United Nations, after my misguided but accurate comment--don't phone the UN after five o'clock or on the weekend because there's nobody there to answer the phone--they established a situation room. But it's not an operations centre. When they staffed the situation room with officers from around the world, all the third world countries insisted that they be paid the $150 U.S. per day per diem, etc., and that wasn't happening because these were donations by countries like Canada of officers to serve there. So with this whole controversy they shut it down, and they don't have that officer support anymore in their headquarters. They're better, but they still cannot command and control at the operational level a mission in the field. Witness the Congo.