My statement referred to caution about expansion. It wasn't to suggest that NATO should never include Georgia. I think much depends on what we see in the coming decade. Actually, we just went through a very, very important political transition which demonstrated something vital about that society.
My point was about caution, given the letter of article 5, and also about recognizing that the war that occurred between Russia and Georgia in 2008 had multiple causes. I think there's concern from the record and analysis of that about some of the behaviour of the Georgians, despite what I would not want to suggest was good behaviour on the part of the Russians. It was just a note of caution about expansion; it was not to say they should never be part of the alliance.
I do think NATO, very much like the European Union, is an incredible magnet for change, and that's how it should use the power that it has. Absolutely, engagement with these countries is essential, as the French recognized throughout that crisis. In order to have any leverage at all in situations that become dangerous, as happened in 2008, you have to have been engaging well before. However, I just wanted to reiterate that we need to be very cautious about expanding membership today.