mr. olsen: the manpower constitutes maybe 3% of the overall manpower. the definition of special operation is in operation conducted by forces or with other forces are not organized or trained or equipped to conduct. it is a negative definition. it makes them until elite infielders with guns. and so the question is not should special operations forces be bigger, because growth management has been a challenge, it is whether or not other forces should be equipped to do things that have fallen on special operations over the last few years. because special operations were already there and agile and responsive, but there is no reason that other forces could not do much of what special operations does. ms. hicks: to make it clear, the issue is maintaining a high level of quality that is in special operations forces. doing a vast expansion of them makes the challenge greater, which is why it is time to look at the regular forces to see how that mission about training the regular forces. mr. vickers: b

mr. olsen: i agree with the ambassador from france that not every challenge is a nail, but there are some males out there that need to be hammered. and i think that part of it is the tactical removal of competent leaders of isil from their positions. the part of it is also the psychological effect of sort of reminding everyone that isil is not invulnerable. that they do have weaknesses capable be exploited by opposition forces. damages their recruiting efforts, it damages their own stick. and withe to reach in precision take out key leaders from within isil. ms. hicks: let me jump in. i think it is really important to remember that we are operating under authority. these are authorities given in time of conflict that include the ability to use targeted approaches for capture, for intelligence gathering, and in some cases, for targeted killing. so i just want to start their because i do think -- there because i do think the drone debate has become unhelpful. does it have strategic sense? absolut