That's a great question. I've answered this for the Senate committee as well.
I never relinquish national command of our troops. In so doing I will put in place the command and control capacity and the leadership to ensure I can exercise that command. That command allows us to take actions, extraordinary or otherwise, to ensure the safety and effectiveness of our troops in operations.
I think perhaps in the translation, some might have come out as perhaps an inappropriate way of describing it. It is true that the forces there will respond to UN tasks to do things, which is perfectly legitimate, and this is on any sort of generic operation. You allow your forces to be tasked by a chain of command, but at all times you understand what those taskings are. We can assure ourselves that those taskings are valid and legitimate, and will aid the mission overall.
As for our ability to protect ourselves, we've learned a lot since Rwanda, and I will make certain that the troops have the rules of engagement they need to be able to defend themselves and those they work with. They'll have the rules of engagement they need in a chapter VII operation—if it is a chapter VII operation—to be able to effectively contribute to that mission to the extent that we decide, as a country, to contribute.
We will take steps that have been learned in the last 15 years about how to best manage operations, be it from a medical service support or theatre management level. This we will do on any deployed force, and we do that now.