 To what extent is a certain operation military versus political, diplomatic, economic? Obviously varies by whatever the mission is. And you have to sort of have a lot more awareness of not just that there are political parts and military parts, but how do they actually work together? I mean what does that mean? It's like we talk about it, but we don't actually really integrate it. We need a robust, interactive, iterative dialogue with all the players at the table so that it doesn't just evolve to how many boots on the ground or are there going to be boots on the ground? I believe in the critical importance, you know, we call it C2, command and control, that is the military concept. But I have my own version. I call it C4. And the C4 is communication, communication, communication and communication. If you achieve that, I think broadly speaking things will be better and right. And that is the responsibility of the leader. They have to think day in and day out how they are going to communicate, for example they are going to give, when they are going to give a particular message, how they are going to give the message, because the delivery of the message, the content of the message, the timing of the message, all are important for ultimate impact on the recipient. In terms of high technology, this is leading to a greater concern and interest in information sharing on the ground so all the partners can collect and share information and get it to the responders very quickly. I think a lot can be said for the efforts made by our so-called digital humanitarian community. Working with social media and downrange capabilities that we just couldn't have imagined 10 or 15 years ago. Adding to the complication now is the participation of many more actors in the information space. And so that has great advantages but also disadvantages in terms of quality of information, managing the volume of information, having standards for how we will define the information requirement. It's a big challenge for leadership at the outset of an operation to figure out how to channel different types of information. I have always appreciated senior operators who came in with a let's err on the side of unclassified, generally available, set up something called an all-partners area network to share the information, recognizing there may be information that needs to be kept on a separate track. Communication is so important and of course it should be the leaders of the country themselves who communicate to the public in their own languages. But in general, being able to communicate truthfully and quickly and clearly about what's going on then provides the clarity, the transparency and then can help generate the confidence that there is a plan and there's a future that people can trust. We, the UN or the Australian government or some other government can get their messages out there but those messages don't resonate with the people we want them to resonate with. If you look at social media from an institutional sense, our messages are quite complex but from a terrorism point of view, those messages are quite simple and to me that's the real challenge. It's not the vehicle, it's the messaging and why people are interested in actually really listening to that message and it gets traction. Handling the media is a real challenge and need to be balanced and measured. You're not just talking to a bunch of journalists, you're talking, you're actually talking to the world and out there in the world are the families that have had their lives ruined by the disaster that you're managing. The traditional way of doing communications for peace operation is essentially one-way communications. 21st century style of communications is really quite circular. It's about building a dialogue rather than simply getting across points. It requires giving up control of the message and that shift is one that our new leadership needs to be very fluent in. The idea of your constituency being a digital one, your message will be changed and distorted and will be parroted back to you in ways that you would never have imagined. I think one of the hallmarks of a modern deployment is the criticality of communications and that the providing timely, accurate and impartial information, responsibility of leadership is no longer an optional choice, it's a requirement. Modern peace operations leadership needs to be able to communicate directly to local populations. But this is a responsibility, right? It's not just doing it, it's explaining it and explaining not just what you're going to do, but what you won't do. And that in terms of expectations management from my perspective is a critical aspect of mission success in a modern peace operation.