 We evacuated all of the UN out of Yemen. I made a very conscious decision that it was just too dangerous to stay there. Bombs were dropping, there's the, you know, al-Qaeda terrorism presence there and a whole range of other conflict going on. Our philosophy is to stay and deliver in a humanitarian sense. So we had to balance the needs of what the stakeholders were with what the safety and security issues were. Now, we had to do some soul-searching over that because the two were actually incompatible. And as a consequence, I sat down with the key executive heads of those other agencies and we revisited the decision. We revisited it and I actually said, okay, well, in this circumstance, if you're prepared to accept some greater responsibility, I'm prepared to create some more space for you. We put some people back in and as that's grown, we've increased those numbers there quite considerably. But again, that didn't come about just by saying, it's too dangerous to be there. That's come about by weighing up what's the drivers for being there. So what's the enormous humanitarian crisis which is occurring and how much tolerance for risk do we need to absorb to be able to service that? I think it's incumbent on the international deployment to try to do a better job of understanding what it is that the local leadership needs. Frequently, one of the things we forget is that we spend a lot of our effort and energy in self-sustainment. So we deploy somewhere and the first thing we do is we build our own camp and we make sure that we have the assets and the resources that we need. We get everything set up and running. And from a local community perspective, while they're quite frequently happy to see us deploy there, in addition, there is a frustration where there's clearly a tremendous amount of money being spent because they see all this infrastructure getting built. And yet, their street is still messed up and their well still is poisoned and there's no roof on the school and things like that. And so from their perspective, quite frequently there is resentment that there is money being spent on a problem but the money is being spent on those that are sent to fix the problem rather than on the problem. So from my perspective, what's important in this regard is listening to the local population. And that means a broad spectrum of the local population. It doesn't just mean the leadership or the political leadership, but those that have skin in the game, those that are relevant to the particular problem, whether it's civil society or any other aspect of societal grouping or religious leaders or what have you and understanding what's important to them.