 Up to now, there's been two main reasons why the U.S. has been committed to Afghanistan. One is to remove and undermine terrorist groups to make sure it can never become a haven again for extremist groups that can attack the U.S. homeland, and the second reason has been to prevent unstable Afghanistan from destabilizing a nuclear armed Pakistan. I think now there's a third reason in light of what's happened in Ukraine. In Ukraine, what we've seen is more aggressive foreign policy posture from the Russians, and my sense from talking to many Central Asians in a recent visit there was they're afraid that they may be next or that this may have consequences on their own stability. They look, many people look to the U.S. in the region as a possible counterweight to Russian influence and even to Chinese influence. This would not have been a reason to go into Afghanistan to begin with, but it certainly is a reason for us to think carefully about the conditions under which we disengage from Afghanistan. We need to not only look at the issue from a South Asia and terrorism perspective, but also look at it from a Eurasia perspective. They know that they have certain weaknesses. They know they live in a very unstable environment. They know that on the one hand there's political pressure from Russia. On the other hand, economic benefits from China, but also sometimes costs to that relationship. And they know that they're facing a very difficult year in 2015. They're going to be elections in Kyrgyzstan. There's a new customs union, which will alter the economic and tax regimes of these countries, and they're watching what's going to happen in Afghanistan. So I think there's a sense that 2015 could be a very fragile year. There's been a lot written about extremists coming from within Central Asia, fighting in Afghanistan, for example, fighting more and more in Iraq and Syria. There have been media reports about Tajiks and Kyrgyz actually fighting on that front on behalf of Islamic extremists. So we expected to hear a lot about the risks of extremism from within these countries. It was actually the issue on which we heard the widest divergence of use. There were some people who were very concerned about a resurgence of extremism, and there were other people who said, listen, this is basically a myth. It's something the government has used to justify security agreements and security assistance from outside, as well as increasing repression against political opponents, not necessarily extremist opponents. The populations which have gone outside, for example, to work as migrant laborers in Russia or to fight, in the case of, for example, the Islamic movement of Uzbekistan in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the risk of these returning for some reason and then radicalizing the population. But I don't think there's a serious short or medium term risk of extremist movements rising from inside and destabilizing these governments.