Reconstruction has also transformed over the past 15 years. What we know about reconstruction and stabilization is that often there has been no suspension of hostilities, but we have the defence sector, the development sector, and the diplomatic sector, as well as the non-state sector, the humanitarians and the NGOs, all working together to try to make change in a recipient population while bombs are still dropping and bullets are still being fired.
We have a problem on our hands, and the UN is much better at managing what happens after a ceasefire. They are preset to understand how to recover, reconstitute, and stand up a society again. NATO is not functional in those capacities in the same respect, so there's really a good way for those two groups to work together, as Mark said, with the kinetic capability at the front end, although NATO does get involved in relief after disasters and offering humanitarian aid in some shapes and forms.
It seems there is a good merging of the capabilities, but we just have to think through.... Actually I find Canada is more able to contribute to NATO. It just seems that there are more mechanisms in place for us to contribute easily and effectively than there are for us to contribute through the UN mechanism.
That's something to consider while you're pulling the report together. It just seems that we have developed more lines through NATO, through communication and interoperability that way, which we can probably see more results from if we focus more on them.