but ms. brian? >> although, as was mentioned before, afghanistan is an unusual circumstance where we're clulgly doing some usaid reconstruction at the same time we're fighting a war. in theory, this skervgs about what will happen in the future. i don't think anyone believes we'll resolve this in the ne year, but if year looking as a policy into the future in theory, when we're talking about usaid and reconstruction, it's much less like think those are going to b happening in a hot zone. that is from our perspective the kind of example writs less likely to be mission credit colorado and less likely to be in a place where there's a rowel of law. >> thank you. i'm going to turn to another question now. i think one of the things that i worry about a little bit is that this discussion revolves around acquisition and acquisition regulations because i think we've seen in many of the issues we're deang with at the commission and over time that the acquisition function is really relegated to a secondary stat

i know ms. brian knows much about them from our previous hearings.the state department has a practice of in i think all embassies 240 or 230 or so to have local nationals generally provide that static, that building guard security force. and they do it as well obviously in afghanistan and in iraq. my question for mr. soloway is, is there a difference between static security in paris or sydney, australia or peru and in active combat zone? do you see a distinction there do? or to you are they always the same thing where it's always okay to have contractors perform that level of security? >> severing different in an active combat zone, so i wouldn't make the statement it's the same as paris. the issue again is and i think dr. stanger's point, there's commonality here, the point i wanted to make earlier, ms. brian doesn't think we agree, but we all agree that the government has to exert control over this mission in whatever form it might take. >> right. >> the gradation is confusing that dr. nagl talked about which is absolutely never which are closely a

greater sort of management boost for the kind of private security contractors that y're using. >> ms. brian? do you have a comment about that, any part of th? >> i was just agreeing with that. i don't nd to take your time. >> dr. stanger, you wrote a classic on the subject we're talking about, one nation under contract. the outsourcing of american power and the future of foreign policy. i want to know that we need to to buy a copy for every single member of the commission. a little plug here for the witness. >> i'll wait to read the classics illustrated version. >> well, maybe the two youngsters you point out will read their it that way also, commissioner. we're going to have aegis here on monday and i think you became familiar with aegis with that book. i want to ask you two questions that jumped out when i read your section on this. they're headed by -- a british group that overall is head by tim spicer and your book callings him a mercenary and i had the imprsion this is not a rsonal exration by you that you're not saying they're all mercenary, quite he's very separate. is he a mercenary