Certainly. This is again an ideal question for any one of the service chiefs. Looking at the human component in regard to having six months versus a longer rotation, there are many factors that come into play, including the families, the endurance of soldiers on operations, and whether it is the type of operation that demands high-intensity for a short period of time or one where a soldier has the endurance to last longer.
All of these factors come to bear as we make decisions about the future. A rotation policy is set. It's a policy and is extant unless it gets changed. The army has just recently gone to an eight-month cycle, which gives the army a bit more endurance, given the force size that it has. So over the course of two years, you save a task force. It wasn't necessarily done for cost-saving reasons, though there's always a resource management equation. It is actually done to make certain that with those low-density enablers that we have--intelligence and so on, who are smaller sized in the Canadian Forces--we can actually extend them longer, reconstitute them, and redeploy.
So we do measure. We do measure readiness constantly. I report quarterly to the chief on readiness and trends, and also to give the chief a view of what we have available to us and what its status is.