We followed up the recommendations. What we saw in 2002 is very different from what we see today. In 2002, the numbers in the armed forces were declining. I didn't see any plan to at least stabilize the attrition.
When we compare the situation to the recommendations that we made in 2002, the progress is satisfactory because the numbers are no longer dropping and there has been a levelling off. Of course, the situation has changed, because they intend to substantially increase the number of troops.
Essentially, our message is that recruitment can no longer be done in the same way. If we want to increase enrolment, then things have to change. The armed forces agree with that assessment and have taken the necessary steps. As to accountability, Adm. Pile has begun to deal with those issues. An auditor must reserve judgment and wait three or four years before deciding if an action plan has yielded the expected results. And we must not minimize the nature of these tremendous challenges.
As you mentioned, in 2002, we had noted shortages in certain specialized occupations. The situation persists in 2005. There is a rather high turnover in some areas; in fact, it can be as high as 30%. There are very specific reasons why the armed forces must have an action plan. We must not forget that retirement numbers will be increasing and there will be more new recruits as well. The attrition rate is higher for those two groups. I am not saying that all is well and that everything has been taken care of. An action plan is required. This is something that the committee could examine. You could ask for an action plan to deal with certain more specific issues. The admiral might be able to help you with that.