Thank you so much for the question.
In fact, of course, hindsight is always a wonderful thing; everything is so much clearer in hindsight, and I'm very conscious of that.
First of all, we have to distinguish between a military action and a stabilization action or a crisis management action. So the very first actions that were taken in Afghanistan, which were clearly to rout out the Taliban, are not what we're talking about in terms of post that activity, the stabilization effort, which NATO ultimately came to lead.
In fact, in that context, the international community did try to put in place a political framework. It started with the Bonn agreement and it became the London agreement. There was a very wide framework. The problem was it left out a key actor, the Taliban, and the Pashtuns, to a large extent, who were the single biggest ethnic group in Afghanistan. In hindsight, many have said, and in fact Brahimi said it at the time, that the best time to negotiate that agreement was when the Taliban were incredibly weak and almost decimated.
If there had been an inclusive political framework then, things might be very different now, but because there wasn't one, ultimately the military action was not sufficient to stabilize the situation. And everyone knows the situation we're in with Afghanistan now.