inaudible] bruce riedel has written a column in "newsweek" in terms of the use of strategic assets like laundry, et cetera. the fact that this has also been brought up by general petraeus and miller, testimony in congress, and the fact that this in a way is inevitable because of past mistakes by the u.s. in terms of the withdrawal from afghanistan. my question in a sense is, is this strategic depth still necessary? because others have also spoken about the deterrence factor that pakistan has in terms of its nuclear capability, vis-À-vis india. so why is it that still this perception that india is the threat to manifest itself, despite the fact that these strategic assets like any terror group may be necessary in a place like afghanistan and the nuclear deterrent is indeed there? >> thank you very much. >> the strategic depth they talk about, these are the afghan taliban in afghanistan, vis-À-vis india. when you made a strong case that nuclear deterrence has held. >> okay. those are two very good questions. should we go down the panel what do you want to start? >> in reference to the first question about military's role or responsibility of capacity to counterinsurgency. they also