Thank you, sir, for a great question.
In my career I've certainly had the reward but the great challenge of participating in an economic embargo of a state that was at war. The war in the former Yugoslavia implicated NATO in a maritime interdiction operation, in an embargo of munitions and fuels that were literally fuelling a war. NATO's role in Operation Sharp Guard was led by Admiral Greg Maddison, who went on to be commander of the Royal Canadian Navy. That operation became one of the hallmarks of our navy's versatility and utility on the international scene. That embargo, that sanctioning of a state, was very effective in reducing the nature of the conflict. It was a key contributor that eventually led to the peaceful resolution.
Maritime interdiction operations are all about sanctioning a country in one way or another. It demands a picture of the oceanic area. It demands a knowledge of the pattern of life in that region: where vessels are trading; what kinds of legitimate industries, like fisheries or small ship trade, are going on; what the military presence is of the belligerent nations. It demands a very strong sense of resolve by the participating nations, because they are now impacting, very seriously, the ability of the belligerents to wage the war that they're involved in. You go into such an operation with your gun shields up and your readiness to defend your ship. You are tested every day because of the nature of bringing a peaceful resolution or attempting to bring to bear a kind of peaceful resolution to a conflict scenario.
It is dangerous. In my career, having deployed to the Gulf and to Haiti, I mark the maritime interdiction embargoing-type operation as one of the most dangerous I've ever participated in.
I'll stop with that and let my colleague give you a piece of the answer.