I would say two things, both hard. One, which could come out of these kinds of discussions, is a clear sense of bipartisan support for this. I'm in Washington, so I'm not exactly in a strong position to talk about bipartisanship, but as a general matter, when a country can communicate that this is not just this government but a wider initiative, it gives leverage to whatever tool the government is deploying, and sustaining that commitment over time would be important.
Look, we have two choices. We can either have a very weak UN system that's not really capable of helping to stabilize a country like Mali, or we can have a somewhat more capable UN system, and for that to happen it has to have countries like Canada contributing at the tougher edge. I thought it was important that Canada went into Mali. I was a little disappointed that it limited itself to air support and rescue operations. I would have liked to see Canada take on a role more similar to what the Dutch had taken on, pushing the envelope a little further. Maybe that's something that can evolve as Canada learns more about Mali and stays in and evolves its operations.
Again, one thing is what we are delivering in Mali. The other is how we are essentially retraining and retooling the UN to be an effective tool and effective instrument for helping to stabilize fragile states with CT problems on the smaller end of that phenomenon, which is an instrument we need to have available to us.