Thanks.
I wish we could have had more time. It's been very interesting.
My question is a bit broad. Let me preface it by saying that people are members of NATO for different reasons. The eastern Europeans, perhaps Lithuania, Slovenia, or others are there because they still feel the need for that collective security. NATO requires consensus for action. You said there were 20-plus NATO countries involved in Afghanistan, for example.
NATO still has a value in terms of building that consensus for action, and even for the strategic concept, which is broader than those narrow interests of some of them. Does it not have a value in continuing to broaden that consensus and developing that consensus even if members can't participate in actions? And wouldn't you see the fact that other nations, such as the 20 involved in Afghanistan, want to contribute to some international peace and security efforts as an argument for taking that larger group back to the United Nations as a focus for diplomatic initiatives—as you said, we're weak on that score—and trying to enhance the role of the United Nations, and get rid of some of what you called the nonsense or histrionics and whatnot and the scepticism about the UN that I see in a lot of defence people in Canada? Can that not be improved using that consensus, politics, and diplomatic efforts?