I wanted to get to the point you suggested, that NATO was the kinetic end of the spear—the sharp end of the stick, so to speak, or the lance—and that NATO doesn't do post-conflict reconstruction as well as other entities or institutions, nor should it. Why is there any need to duplicate? I'm concerned about the doctrine that is still out there in many camps that says we don't nation-build. We've seen what happens when you take the kinetic component out of theatre too quickly. We've seen it in Iraq and we've seen it elsewhere. You get conflict 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0.
How do you close that cycle in terms of whole-of-government thinking to make sure that we see a conflict through to successful post-conflict reconstruction and we don't slide back into the next iteration of that conflict? Do we nation-build? Do we have to? If we give it to the UN, the UN is more diffuse politically, more appealing, less impositionist. If NATO were to do this work, it might be seen as too western and too powerful, as not endogenous enough for local processes.
How do we close that loop to make sure it's not just a hand-off to the UN and things may or may not go into the weeds, but it is done in a cycle, success is experienced, and you don't get 2.0 of the conflict we started to intervene in?