Can I interrupt? I only have seven minutes, and you've taken up a fair bit. You're really avoiding the question.
I didn't question the institutional independence of your board. I suggested to you that a true civilian oversight body would be absent military personnel, who may have total institutional independence but may have standards and influences and cultures associated with the military. It may well be. We've heard examples of it in the past, such as the “suck it up, soldier” business about PTSD, which was prevalent in the military and is now being denounced. A civilian oversight body might not have that same attitude about certain matters that are medical or financial. Many think that standards could be better in terms of how soldiers are treated in terms of their pay and benefits as well as in terms of whether they're released properly, or even whether they should be released or should be allowed to stick around to get the benefits after being there for ten years, for example, instead of being discharged at nine years and ten months.
There are a whole bunch of issues. There may be institutional independence, but if it doesn't involve civilian oversight and if the experience and history and life of the people on the board is totally military, I have a concern. Do you not agree that it could be a problem?