There are a couple of points here.
Number one, I am not an expert on the disposition of NATO forces. Perhaps one of the other professors might be able to give a hand on that as far as troop numbers are concerned, but the Middle East and north Africa are very important to NATO. They are part of what's called the Mediterranean dialogue. They have always had representation at the NATO table. This is one of the tremendous values of NATO. It sees itself as a hub for discussion and for collaboration, no matter if participants are official members of the club, as it were, or not. NATO has always kept the lines of communication open—since 1994, I believe—specifically for some of the Middle Eastern dialogue countries.
You heard me mention projected security a few moments ago. What NATO is really trying to do at this point is to take a look at the migration crisis that is occurring all around the Mediterranean. They are taking a look at some of the regimes that are having a lot of trouble maintaining simple civil society through their security services, and they are trying to see how they can make sure that these do not escalate.
This could be an absolute tragedy. It already has been in Syria, but it could be very easily a tragedy in many of the other Mediterranean dialogue countries. I think that is what NATO is trying to do there.
How we can communicate that is a much more tricky situation as far as what our impact is. We won't be able to tell for some time. We could be training hundreds and hundreds of security personnel such as police or emergency services in Iraq, for instance, and things can still go south. It's very difficult.
We can show how we are participating with, say, individual stories of what we're doing and the individuals we have helped, but in the long run, showing how that's going to impact global peace is always a much more challenging situation.