I can answer this one.
You've pointed to the complexities of a multilateral organization that works by consensus and where each country has its own domestic political drivers and shapers.
We've learned a lot through Afghanistan and Libya. We shouldn't forget that these were our first real fighting missions in a long time. You were asking nations to do some really difficult stuff. It was very interesting to see the nature of the political debate across allied members. Some of them simply weren't willing to go there, and others, like Canada, were.
You asked what the plan is to deal with this. I think we are coming to an understanding that this is just a reality of the political geography of NATO. It's a diverse bunch of democracies and we're not going to be able to get to a single approach.
We have to figure out who can bring what to what fight, what they are prepared to do, and to make sure that we have the interoperability, and the visibility of what capabilities are available. We have to deal with some of the issues that General Bouchard pointed to, which are just kind of habits of working in a different way, because he was obviously frustrated by some of what he went through.
But the smarter defence piece, and again, Chicago and the work out of Chicago, a lot of this is going to be about how we have truly integrated the lessons we've learned from Libya, because not everybody is going to do everything all the time.