We're continuing to follow this path. NATO will continue the so-called NATO response force, which has been with us now for years and, as you rightly say, has never been employed, for various reasons.
One of the reasons, for example, is that when you build forces for a NATO response force rotation—it was six months in the past and now it's one year—you prepare them 18 months in advance. You make sure that the elements the nations provide are used to working together, from headquarters level to forces level. But the force composition is not always adequate to the operations that will erupt in four or five months, and the nations who have agreed to provide forces to the NATO response force might not want to participate in an operation. We had the case again of Libya, where eight nations decided to physically contribute and others decided not to do so. This is why in the past every time an operation has erupted, we have built a new ad hoc force.
We maintain the NATO response force for two reasons: one, because we still believe there is a good rationale to have forces ready in the future; and second, it's an excellent transformation and training tool. This eighteen-month period of time during which these forces train and come to readiness is a transformative period. The one-year period during which these forces are on alert is a very good training opportunity. We want to maintain that.